< January 4	January 6 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still from the Block[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Still from the Block

Completing this dangling AFD nomination, because it certainly looks like it should be deleted. Only sources are forums on a Jennifer Lopez fansite. —Kww(talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now:i would say delete, but i found some sources that my be reliable enough to keep it ...[1] [2] [3] [4].....i dont know, are those reliable sources??

Anywhere But Home (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:None of them confirm the title, so it doesn't matter whether they are reliable. As a rule, we try to avoid sourcing things to merchant sites, but they can be used if necessary. Magazine scans on fansites are a bad idea ... always better to get a physical copy of the magazine and use that as a source.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CM Punk and Kofi Kingston[edit]

This tag team does not meet the WP:N guideline as they have only tag teamed for two months. One Tag Team Championship reign does not establish notability. Delete Tr uc o 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Damn, you beat me. Anyway, NN. §imon_K^S_K 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many tag team championships does it take to be notable? I could see a merge and redirect, but this seems like a notable bit that needs better sourcing. No? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No because the length in which the team has tag teamed determines their notability, and what they accomplish during that time. John Morrison and The Miz have tag teamed for over a year now and have accomplished 2 tag team championship reigns, which is notable. Another example is Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes (which was deleted for the following reasons), they tag teamed for about 4 months in 2008 and won the World Tag Team Championship but disbanded soon after that, not a notable team. This article is even less, as they tag teamed for two months, held the titles for less than a month and disbanded soon afterwards.--Tr uc o 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete or make it a redirect Not notable yet. Only teamed for a small time and really did nothing but win the tag team championship and held it for a month maybe.--WillC 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Trunk Terminal Project (Portland, Maine)[edit]

A lovely looking article, but I can't find any independent sources. "The official announcement for the proposal is expected to be made in the late Spring of 2009, most likely between the months of April and June." So the proposal has yet to be announced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I can't find much as well, I did manage to find an article on the Ocean Gateway website, [5], talking about rail service from Grand Trunk Station on commercial street. Not sure why someone would create this page so soon if they had nothing to back it up.--Bubblecuffer (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I live in the area, don't know about you, I'll see if I can find a copy of this Newsletter at the Portland Chamber of Commerce or something--Bubblecuffer (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they're working on the proposal and wanted to share their hard work. It's a neat looking project. But it probably has to wait at least until it's announced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long until that happens? I can go to the Portland Public Library this week, they have everything you've never heard of. I would say we should wait at least until the creator of this page weighs in...--Bubblecuffer (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "The official announcement for the proposal is expected to be made in the late Spring of 2009, most likely between the months of April and June." After wading through some AfD dregs, I have to say it pains me a bit to AfD this article. But it does seem rather premature for an article. Can you post on the creator's talk page and ask them to comment here? I notified them I think, but maybe they need encouragement. One of my concerns is that it's hard to balance an article made to promote the project if it hasn't been announced yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Chase and I have been involved in this article as you may have seen. I am just a student at SMCC, and I am not involved in the project directly but one of my friends fathers is. I have seen some of their proposals and decided to make a page for it, seeing that it may be a very notable project soon. I would really hate to see this article go, I have worked very hard on it (putting it in front of the occasional assignment, which may have been a bad choice), and I even interview Neal Dow for some information on the project. Is there any way this can be avoided, I can work my hardest to try and get just the facts out. Its hard for me to see the bias obviously, but as you can imagine who would create an article they weren't interested in?

We get upset at people with conflicts of interest, but let's not forget that someone passionate about their work or a project they love may simply be coming here, naming themself after something important in their life, and trying to contribute. A quote from User:ChildofMidnight (I like it)

I don't have an electronic copy of the Portland Development Newsletter, but I'm sure I can get a copy.

Can you please let me know before you delete this page? --GTTP2009 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the conversation. The problem is that there are "rules" about what belongs and what doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Your work will certainly not be lost. Even if it was deleted, deletions are not necessarily permanent and the content can still be accessed and provided to you. One option is for the article to be moved to your userspace, and/or recreated when the subject becomes notable. The problem is that the standard for article inclusion is substantial coverage from independent sources. Can you provide references showing substantial coverage for a yet to be announced proposal? Do you want to have the article userfied? It's your move. :) I'm flattered to be quoted! Who knew people read that stuff? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No significant coverage to date. Bongo matic 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bongo -- Chase, you can't add stuff to an article that you get from an interview. It needs to have been published by a reliable source, reliable by Wikipedia standards. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As yes rules... Well if it must go can I at least take the first option

One option is for the article to be moved to your userspace

I would love to keep working on the article as thing progress, so when it meets wikipedia standards it will be a good article. How would I go about doing that? Also, I appreciate your help, I am sorry I have created this problem, I was just trying to add to the infinite wealth of knowledge... Keep me updated.--GTTP2009 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary/independent sources that verify the existence/seriousness of the proposal. Currently the page content is based on newsletter, personal interviews etc, which are not acceptable sources, and wikipedia is effectively hosting the homepage/promotional material for the project proposal. Fails WP:CRYSTAL too. Abecedare (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New jersey murders[edit]

Delete as blatant WP:HOAX (author has already removed PROD) Mayalld (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (obvious vandalism/misinformation). Should we contact authorities? It might be an expression of homicidal feelings...- Mgm|^(talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' Delete for all of the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention it is a violation of WP:Crystal as the events have not taken place yet. TheDude2006 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' If the named individuals are real then I read this as an attack page. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:HOAX.--Tr uc o 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Separator[edit]

Delete non-notable invention that has never gone into comercial production. A patent doesn't confer notability on a product that may never be produced Mayalld (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NN.--Tr uc o 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete - No significant coverage, fails WP:N. Matt (Talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford's Town BBQ Throwdown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Oxford's Town BBQ Throwdown

Delete non-notable competition Mayalld (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NN competition.--Tr uc o 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Sadly. I found a couple sources but they are local. [6]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--haha, this is such an advertisement for a thing I would love to go to... Wanna go, CoM? But it is an ad, and it has no sources of note. Oink! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Hill Club and Lodge[edit]

Delete non notable golf club. Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:N to warrant an article.--Tr uc o 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be mentioned fairly frequently in books surveying American golf courses ("one of the top courses in the country", says Frommers). --Delirium (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about hosting the Arnold Palmer invitational PGA event? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's one source. Here's another. And I'm sure it's been discussed at length in golf magazines. Zagalejo^^^ 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume the primary argument for deletion is lack of notability. Besides the sources found by Zagalejo & Delerium there have been news articles such as [7] and [8] which focus on the club & its golf course. --Megaboz (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regular venue for a PGA tour event is certainly notable. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Purohit[edit]

Delete unsourced article about an apparently nn actress - so nn we don't know when or where she was born. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BLP.--Tr uc o 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, wikipedians don't know when or where she was born, must be a nobody regardless of her film and television roles. Juzhong (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything about this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best we have some passing references that she plays/played a role in a Hindi series Waaris. Fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER and no sources to write a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Taraneh Javanbakht. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netism[edit]

Unable to find any significant independent coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Raamin (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taraneh Javanbakht, whose philosophy this appears to be. Mandsford (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect – in the policy of AGF, in that I could not find any references and must believe the ones listed in the piece. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the extent possible. No redirect, as this term is not substantiated in English, and has other uses, such as: "any confusing statement about the Internet or its underlying technology." --Bejnar (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Neologism notable in context of this person's biography. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism that has no independent notability. Note that all usable content in Netism is also present in the Taraneh Javanbakht article, and since it was added to the two articles by the same user User:Zohairani (see diff), there is no reason to preserve Netism as a redirect in order to comply with GFDL. Abecedare (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirikoki[edit]

Delete no ref's no indication that this sex act is notable or what it consists of other than "like" some other ill-defined act. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Interesting, butt…..(pun intended). I could find nothing-on Google News nor Google Scholar. Some hits on plain old Google but nothing from 3rd party – reliable - verifiable sources. Only primary (yes pun intended again). ShoesssS ^Talk 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--don't know how original the act is, but the article sure is OR. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a redirect to frotteurism may be appropriate. JulesH (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term in not notable. If there is a notable term for this merge it there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. a redirect to Suryoyo Sat is an option, if the company is the same. However, I can't say this from the article Tone 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean TV[edit]

An internet only TV channel, with no references, this was speedied by me, but the original poster removed it, it has been toned up, but it doesn't seem to have any sources other than itself. RT | Talk 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:WEBSITE. Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per not meeting WP:WEBSITE.--Tr uc o 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Insufficent notability. An interesting subject though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aramaeans article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ((huh))?? dab (𒁳) 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:WEB. Cannibaloki 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines for web content. Matt (Talk) 07:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suryoyo Sat. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Suryoyo Sat provided we can show this is the same company. --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Terrillja _talk 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Snyder[edit]

Non-notable personal injury attorney, fails WP:BIO and WP:V article admits he's primarily known for his adverts and not his work as an attorney. No neutral 3rd party sources, reads like a vanity page. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Got to admit he is honest as shown here [9]. However, he has also been chosen as top lawyer in the state by his peers as shown here [10], and voted as a super lawyer as noted here [11]. I believe Mr. Snyder deserves a mention here on Wikipedia. I’ll reference and inline the piece later today or tomorrow. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Shoessss' reasonings, those articles establish the notability of this attorney.--Tr uc o 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep <Insert lawyer joke here> ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources turned up by Shoessss meet WP:BIO. Weak delete on the attorney jokes. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beegie Adair[edit]

non-notable Genb2004 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep... According to the article, she played with several highly notable music stars... that indicates some degree of notability for herself. However, I agree that this needs to be established through more sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –and god bless this 72-year young woman. I believe I found enough 3rd party – reliable – verifiable and 3rd party sources to establish notability to meet our guidelines, as shown here [12]. I’ll cite and reference the piece a little later, unless someone wants to be bold and just go ahead and do it. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking at the news results provided by Shoes, she is a notable musician, despite a relatively low profile. – Toon ^(talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Nayler Foundation[edit]

Non-notable charity. Article has long been tagged for notability and reliance solely on self/primary ref. It doesn't even appear to assert notability. Contested speedy. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable third party sources establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CORP.--Tr uc o 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete Sounds well intentioned, but does not appear to meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any significant independent coverage, non-notable. Matt (Talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donte J[edit]

Up and coming rapper who doesn't meet notability requirements yet. I have looked through the sources provided, only one of which is a reliable source,[13], the rest are primary sources or links to tours which are scheduled but have not happened yet. I also attempted to find sources on my own, but there's nothing out there which qualifies yet. While he may meet notability in the future, he doesn't right now. Raven1977 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Raven1977[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Publicity article created by his management, obvious COI and no notability either. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, one of a number of such hoax pages created by this now-blocked user. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House Rules[edit]

Apparently imaginary film. Can't find trace of this film, and can't find any film starring this list of actors, so it doesn't appear to be an alternate title, either. —Kww(talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:Hoax. There is nothing on the alleged film. Anywhere. If it were release as asserted, it would exist somewhere. But nope. Nada. Zip. Zero. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish football players playing abroad[edit]

WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is not encyclopedic ~~there are no sources provided~~ and there is no evidence provided that it is a notable topic. The list is also confusing, because the title suggests it is of Scottish players playing abroad, but it includes players who have represented other national teams (eg Stuart Holden), and it includes players in the English football league system (which is also in the United Kingdom). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't someone recently nominate a similar list? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, look at Category:Scottish expatriate footballers. Completely fucking useless, doesn't tell you a single thing to distinguish them. Juzhong (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, and the Category does an adequate job. Also, what's the point of having this list when List of British and Irish footballers who have played abroad also exists (albeit up for deletion as well)? Are Scottish players somehow more special than English, Welsh or Irish players? Bettia (rawr!) 11:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already mentioned that the Category is completely fucking useless because doesn't tell you a single thing to distinguish them. Maybe you missed that. Juzhong (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and please read WP:CIVIL. Juzhong (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL. The list as it stands is not at all useful, because it confuses various issues as described above. It also has the weakness of being a "current" list, which means that there will always be inaccuracies (eg Steven Pressley has finished his contract with Randers). The expatriate footballers cat is more useful because it lists all Scottish players who have played outside the UK. If the user wishes to find out more detail about where and when that player was an expatriate, then they can look at the player's article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So to find people who played in Germany, ~~or played abroad in the 1970's,~~ I merely have to go through every entry in the category one by one. Juzhong (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have a point about it being a "current" list, I'd like it to cover past players as well. Juzhong (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't tell me to read WP:CIVIL you hatecruft-spewing hypocrite. Juzhong (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although a move to "List of Scottish football players playing outwith Scotland" might be in order. I note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Category deletion at which the reverse logic i.e. keep/create lists as the categories are being deleted is discussed. The idea that the list should be deleted because a more comprehensive list exists, (but whose deletion is also supported by the user suggesting this) strikes me as being odd. Ben Mac Dui 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC) PS for User:Juzhong - your incivility is doing your case no good at all.[reply]

I wasn't actually citing that as a reason for deletion, it was just a question. My reasons are given at the start of my !vote. Bettia (rawr!) 11:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete this unencyclopedic list.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The list is only confusing if you don't understand what the United Kingdon is: "a unitary state consisting of four countries" according to wikipedia. As to Stuart Holden having represented another National team: he has only represented USA at youth team level! "Unencyclopedic" = "shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia" = "should be deleted from an encyclopaedia". So you're just saying, "This should be deleted because it should be deleted." --Dpw77 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holden played for the US in the 2008 Olympic Games. Another problem is the flexible nature of football nationality, particularly within Great Britain and Ireland. Players like Matt Elliott or Nigel Quashie wouldn't have been on this list for most of their careers, but ended up playing for Scotland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holden is listed under the heading "eligible players with dual-nationality" it very seldom happens that an eligible player becomes ineligible, a point demonstrated by your inability to find any other players in the same category. Matt Elliott and Nigel Quashie would have also been listed under "eligible players with dual-nationality".--Dpw77 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, playing in England is not playing abroad. Next the list is heavily under populated and a list page of this kind would be far too long if truly compiled. Next thing is about the nationality of British over Scottish again... anyone... The list is asking for too much and isn't refined to a specific qualifications of who should be allowed on it. Govvy (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England is a different country with a different national team and a different league set up and a different governing body. How would you define "abroad"? In what sense is the list heavily under populated? The list is complete for every top professional league in the world! The list is very specific: professional players playing outside the Scottish league set up who are eligible to represent the Scottish national team.--Dpw77 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abroad is defined clearly from one foreign country to another. Scotland, England and Wales are not foreign to each other. Govvy (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your mind that's the clear definition. In the dictionary you will find abroad defined as "Out of one's own country" which perfectly fits the sense meant here "Professional Scottish football players playing outside of Scotland".--Dpw77 (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That requires a degree of original research, as nobody can possibly know which English / Welsh / Irish players have Scottish parents or grandparents and which don't. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually quite easy to keep track of which players are eligible. Player's agents are very keen to promote their players eligibility. Newspapers also regularly print stories regarding eligibility (see for example this story from 2 weeks ago: [mail story]). Also, the coaches of the various Scotland youth teams make it their business to know exactly which players are eligible in order to include them in their squads see for example the national team entry for Alex_MacDonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpw77 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of international football then it is abroad. As long as this is fully explained in the list then I dont see a problem.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, need's to have the definition more defined but apart from that it is a good list.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see nothing wrong with this list at all. As it players who are CURRENTLY playing not in scotland, not players who have played abroad in there Careers. Its also a good guide as u dont have to go scrolling threw that other list for players, which is int very helpful at all.--Bookerman (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also move to strike Juzhong's vote due to his/her aggressive behaviour, which looks like a bias vote. Govvy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the aggressive behaviour, but are you going to accuse everyone strongly in favour of keeping this list as having a "bias vote"? Am I biased too?--Dpw77 (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you did in fact create the article in question and have contributed most of your time to it and hardly anything else on Wiki in comparison. I do find that strange that you defend it with Bookerman and Juzhong. I can only hypothesis that all three of you are one and the same person. (On evidence: lack of different types of contributions, the contribs between the three are highly localized.) Govvy (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should point out that this is technically not a vote per se - it is a discussion. If you think that a certain editors opinions are biased then the closing admin will take that into account.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft with volatile membership. No secondary sources to establish that "Scottish players playing abroad" is notable as a group (which is distinct from, it having notable members). Also see reasons cited at earlier AFD of similar list. Abecedare (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumnock and Holmhead[edit]

~~Non-notable article about a defunct type of subdivision. ninety:one 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. ninety:one 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Defunct or not, it's still notable per WP:N as it's obviously the subject of at least the Encylopedia Britanica. Notability is not temporary. --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's notable, and notability is definitely not permanent. Aoubt 5% of that page has any relevance today, and it is absolutely no use to any reader. It's not even like it could be updated - the subject simply no longer exists. If a reader wanted to find out about Cumnock and Holmhead a hundred years ago, they would go to EB. ninety:one 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it's only verifiable, but it specifically that it passes WP:Notability.--Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - official administrative divisions are notable and sources are available that meet WP:N. As Oakshade says, once notability has been established it is permanent - see WP:NTEMP. As local government changes plenty of these become defunct but we don't delete historic content because it is no longer current. Nor would we delete, by way of another example example, a notable company, simply because it has been liquidated. Smile a While (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can now see why one might want to keep it, but still don't think it's really worth it! I'll withdraw the nom... ninety:one 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedied as a G7. Normally I'd be cautious about interpreting a page blanking during an AfD as consent to delete, but the edit summary "Deleted" seems like sufficient communication. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Storm(Novel)[edit]

Contested Prod - Author deleted prod notice, and prod2, with the explanation "Just becasue it is unpublished doesnt mean it can't be sold on the internet from sites that support new writers. The author is new to writing." Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) - it's unpublished, and the author is not notable. Delete. --Dawn Bard (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hqb (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. IF it is published, it may obtain notability, but as of now, it has not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, crystal ball, advertisement, etc. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I hope it's a big success when it comes out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and wait until this is published, if ever. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As a strictly formal matter, a purported novel which is both unfinished and unpublished is not verifiable. --TS 08:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has blanked the page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sawyer Brown discography. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice (Sawyer Brown album)[edit]

Absolutely no reliable sources; no third party reviews, nothing. Was distributed exclusively through a small Christian book and gift shop chain that doesn't have its own article. Only source I could find was the band's own website. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, so delete per the nom. I did look at Sawyer Brown on the wiki, but I still have never heard of him either, and I listen to a lot of country music =] K50 Dude ROCKS! 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a.) Sawyer Brown is a five-piece band, not a singular entity; b.) They haven't had a Top 40 hit in 8 years, and c.) They're on Curb, a label notorious for not promoting any artist except Tim McGraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band is very notable and has won lots of awards. I could see an argument for a merge, but deletion seems unwarranted given the bands notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited though. Albums are only notable if there's something more to say about them than a tracklist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sawyer Brown discography. The band is notable enough, but the limited release of this album and lack of media attention to it [14] [15] suggest that it does not warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Abecedare (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess Abernethy[edit]

One minor role on a cable show, one guest appearance on another. Unable to locate ANY reliable sources about him. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article. Notability for inclusion not indicated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promo 1999[edit]

Promo record likely released in very, very small numbers. Fails WP:RS and WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no reliable sources to establish notability. A mention of this promo can be made in this band's article (if it isn't already).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay to mention in band's article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC completely. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NALBUMS and Wikipedia ≠ Encyclopaedia Metallum. Cannibaloki 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ...and salted. Tone 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nozz-A-La[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No significant coverage. No third-party refernences. Padillah (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this would be the third nomination, all of which end in delete, and yet... the article keeps getting remade. Padillah (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe salt. Non-notable fictional element, absolutely no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge Notable within the universe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no encyclopedic value outside of three or so novels (according to article). It's a fictional drink that was mentioned a couple of time because they don't want to use "Coca-Cola", I don't see how this needs an article. Tavix (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Community Support Groups[edit]

Was nommed for speedy however did not see any speedy categories this applied to. Clearly non encylopedic content (it is a directory of services), not what wikipedia is for Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non encylopedic content, would work much better as a directory of particular services (not what wikipedia is for). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the editor who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, I suppose that criteria G11 (blatant advertising) does not apply. In any case, Delete, as the material is unencyclopedic and would be better served as its own website, not as a Wikipedia article. TheLetterM (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonencyclopedic and hlaf the article is currently in copyvio. Padillah (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Several of the sites tagged have clear copyright notices. Some do not. Either way, copyright is presumed unless permission is verified. But even if permission were verified, this would remain a directory. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this might belong on a government of gibraltar web-page under a heading like "community groups"; entirely unencyclopedic.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several comments above, shocked by all the possible copyright infringement. --Know zilla 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Although I am fully aware, as I am sure we all are, of the political aspects of the disputed National relationships between Tibet and China, and of the disputed status of Tibetan nationals, consensus agrees that as the situation currently stands he does not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Tsering[edit]

fails WP:BIO and also WP:ATHLETE BigDunc^Talk 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Strongly keep

WP:BIO is not correct. He has played 4 years in the Tibet national football team that is performing within the Viva World Cup.
WP:ATHLETE is not correct either: he has "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". Throughout India there is a competition for Tibetan football players in exile. The Tibet national football team is the highest team a Tibetan football player in exile can obtain. Davin (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why a Tibetan couldn't play for a professional club. This player hasn't. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand He doesn't fail notability requirements at all. He has played for the Tibet national football team which is obviously notable (People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport) which has played other national football teams from around the world. It may not be officially recognised by FIFA because of China problems but any sports person who has represented their country immediately passes our requirement from what I gather. I don;t think amateur level has anything to do with it, we have many articles on Olympians who are not professional athletes. Rather the requirements in my view are based around the significance of the subject. If he has represented his country in a sport, this is acceptable I think. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Can you find reliable sources for this article? I have seen footballers who played in the Champions League for an Irish football team, (Cork City FC) go threw this process. The team are not recocnised by FIFA the world governing body. We have the Homeless World Cup are these soccer players notable? IMO as notable as this player, but I would AfD them as they would probably fail both criteria I listed that this player fails. BigDunc^Talk 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is canvassing over here: it was put in small but only football deletionists are asked to reply !!

@BigDunc - Monopoly (FIFA) is a criterion of notability for Wikipedia. Davin (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the Tibet national side is not a member of FIFA. Therefore he has not participated in full international competition, which means that he fails WP:ATHLETE. I think this case would be similar to that of a player who has not played professionally but has represented an autonomous region like Galicia ~~(a bit hypothetical given that every player in their most recent squad is professional)~~. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is on sites like National Football Teams.com. I don't see why FIFA should be any inhibiting factor in regards to information. Wikipedia covers unofficial or "other" events or issues all the time. Kiribati is not recognised by FIFA either. Does that mean that the side in non notable and that they have never competed with "official" national teams? The fact that the Tibetan side has played numerous "official national teams" is good enough for me. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I don't think the appropriate question is whether the Tibet national football team is notable, but instead whether an amateur or semi-pro player who makes an appearance for the Tibet national team is notable. I believe that national teams which do not compete in FIFA- or Confederation-recognized matches do not confer notability under WP:ATHLETE. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed keep, As if a player of Galicia autonomous football team is not notable...??? It's not only Football that counts. Nor that it's not only FIFA that counts. Actually, FIFA as one only criterion is very, but really very unencyclopedial to follow as a lead. Davin (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)_{Note: Duplicate "keep" !vote struck; misleading – Toon^(talk) 19:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

I think there are very good reasons why the lack of FIFA recognition is important. It means that he has not played in an official international match, as these are sanctioned by FIFA. I think both of you are conflating the notability of the team as a whole (which will have significant coverage and therefore easily passes WP:N), with the notability of an individual player of that team. There are hundreds of semi-professional or amateur teams which have articles, but we don't keep the articles of their players (unless they have played for a professional club). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He he has competed at the highest amateur level of soccer; isn't that all that is required for an athlete? Enough sources verify the article, and besides, there are other notable soccer organisations besides FIFA. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the highest level of soccer. He has only competed against the "national" teams of other stateless nations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article fails WP:ATHLETE since the VIVA World Cup is clearly not the highest amateur level of soccer. I think that if Tibet becomes affiliated to AFC or FIFA at some point in time, players that appear in AFC or FIFA competitions can be viewed as passing WP:ATHLETE, but as of today they should not. Jogurney (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The way I read WP:Athlete, it can overcome a lack of references IF the person in question plays at the highest level. Whether, in the case of soccer, playing for some entity recognized by FIFA is in my opinion irrelevant, and in this particular case (a China-related case) politics have a lot to do with that (I strongly disagree with the editor above, for this particular case). In other words, I feel that having a FIFA stamp is unnecessary and is less a matter of sports than of some arbitrary policy. The guy plays on a particular national football team, so he's notable, and playing at that high level weighs more heavy than having independent references--for me. I'd love to hear some other opinions on the matter though; basically, I'd like an informed opinion on the weight of references vs. performing at a certain level, including the hypothetical case of let's say a World Cup soccer player who's never been written about in the papers. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - FIFA recognition is crucial because unofficial "national teams" play frequently in unofficial friendly matches. I can see that Tibet has played a "Delhi XI" team in the recent past, and it would be strange to argue that the members of the "Delhi XI" acquire the same amount of notability for play as the members of the India national football team. Since Tibet is not recognized by FIFA or any of its confederations, Tibet's players are analogous to those of the "Delhi XI" team or any number of other unofficial teams that play similar unofficial exhibition matches. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is that the Tibet team is not recognized by FIFA for reasons that have everything to do with politics--reasons that simply don't apply to Delhi XI, for starters because Delhi is not a country. So, as I've been trying to explain, while a "FIFA requirement" makes perfect sense in many ways, it does not do so here. I simply don't care for the appelation "official" here. Tibet is a country (my political POV); the "Tibet National Team" is a national team (in my opinion). Drmies (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet is a stateless national team much like the Dehli XI or other stateless national teams like Greenland. They simply do not play at the highest level as they do not participate in competitive World Cup or Confederation tournaments. Jogurney (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi is not a country. There is an Indian national football team, in part because India is not a country run by another country which calls that first country a province. The national team of Greenland is not 'stateless' like that of Tibet is. Please remember that sport is not free of politics; to deny that is naive. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are very good reasons why the team isn't officially recognised given the huge conflict over Tibetan independence and potential problems with the Chinese government over it. The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this AfD is about the player and not the team and I can find no verifiable reliable sources that infer notability on this player. BigDunc^Talk 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does say a lot about the player. That fact alone that he has played in this selection that represents 6 million Tibetans in exile (not even counted how may in Tibet itself) is enough reason for an article here. Davin (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not correct. The Tibetan squad represents 6 million Tibetans in exile, so he fulfills the rule that he has competed at the highest amateur level of a sport. This is why WP:ATHLETE is not valid at all. Davin (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this player plays for Mundgod in Uttar Pradesh, India. This is not a professional club, and certianly doesn't play in a fully professional league. I think there's some misunderstanding about football - you don't have to play for a FIFA-affiliated national team to play in a FIFA-affiliated league. The quality of the teams of unofficial national teams is also extremely low - simply because players, if good enough, will play for the official team for which they are eligible - the pool of players available is small. As an example, the only Greenland player with an article is Niklas Kreutzmann, who plays in the third tier of Danish football. Tsering does not meet WP:N, and doesn't even meet the more accommodating WP:ATHLETE. This player is clearly not notable enough for inclusion; perhaps if in the future he plays at a reasonably high level of football, but right now it's just like having an article about a Sunday League player. Fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N. – Toon ^(talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Meets WP:ATHLETE, Tibet national football team is the highest level of soccer in Tibet. Recognition from FIFA is not a criteria in WP:ATHLETE. --Jmundo (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soccer is a sport that is played professionally, so WP:ATHLETE requires a footballer to play in a fully professional league (or equivalent). Jogurney (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed at a fully professional level - the highest level any player can compete at club level is in a professional league so he has not acheived anything of note in this area. Simply making an appearance for an international team does not confer notability unless that appearance was in a major sporting event such as the World Cup, which of course can't happen as far as Tibet is concerned at the moment. He also fails WP:N due to a lack of decent published sources - a standard Google search gives nothing of value, and searching on Google News gives us nothing at all. Bettia (rawr!) 11:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody support a Merge? A brief profile of the players on the Tibetan National Team page and create redirects given that there isnt much information available at present and as a biography itself is questionable as has been touched on above. The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are thousands of pokemons on Wikipedia and they are so called notable. Each of these football players is notable enough. Tenzin Tsering represented 6 million Tibetans in exile in four years on a row. Davin (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: merge: I might could support a merge if there are redirects for (at least some of) the individual players. Davin's concern, I reckon, is about respect, and I concur with the sentiment, but there are notability issues (press covering, etc) that are difficult to overcome in this discussion.

Let me state though for the record that I think some of Jogurney's arguments are narrow-minded and don't stand up to academic scrutiny: their "FIFA requirement" makes no sense in the real world, and comparing Tibet to Greenland is disrespectful, really, as well as meaningless. Moreover, the statement that "Soccer is a sport that is played professionally, so WP:ATHLETE requires a footballer to play in a fully professional league (or equivalent)" is simply untrue: I played soccer as a kid, and I didn't play professionally. Besides WP:Athlete does not state that only professional players are notable--if it did, we'd have to get rid of all the college players from the US, which is a ridiculous proposition. The individual parts of this logical statement are invalid, and the proposition itself is a non sequitur.

The more I think about the Bald One's suggestion, the more I like it--at least until (some of) these players have gotten some coverage. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It is unequivocally true that Greenland and Tibet are stateless. It is completely reasonable to consider players in their national football teams analogous. No disrespect is intended to any of these players, but it is quite clear that their players receive significantly less coverage and notoriety than players that represent national teams which play in the FIFA World Cup or various Confederation Championships (such as the Euro or Asian Cup). The BBC and numerous other news organizations dedicate plenty of resources to covering players participating for national teams that play in these official FIFA competitions. They do not do the same for Greenland and Tibet (or the "Delhi XI"). With respect to the application of WP:ATHLETE to collegiate athletes in the USA, it *is* controversial. I believe the consensus is that collegiate baseball, basketball or American football players do not pass WP:ATHLETE, but likely satisfy WP:N if they play for an institution with a big enough profile where they will receive significant coverage in reliable sources. The article in question is not analogous because there are zero reliable sources that have been identified which provide significant coverage of the player. (The NFT page is the closest thing I've seen but it contains the most trivial coverage possible - no birth date, no playing data). I hope that's clear because your post above demonstrates little understanding of my earlier argument. Jogurney (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been mass press covering Tibet-Team (5600+), Tibet National Football Team (360+) Let's skip the pokemon articles first. Merge is a compromise that doesn't do anything good and doesn't respect the fact that these are all exile national football players that represent millions of people. Davin (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above this is about the player and not the team. He fails WP:BIO by a long way and the less strict WP:ATHLETE. Also Davin WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BigDunc^Talk 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the facts. This football player does not fail op WP:BIO nor on WP:ATHLETE. Not on WP:BIO, since he has played 4 years in the national Tibetan football team that is performing within the Viva World Cup and represents millions of people. Nor WP:ATHLETE since it is an amateur who competed at the highest amateur level of his sport enviroment: the Tibet national football team that represents 6 million people Davin (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davin you say because he played for the national team for 4 yrs that he passes BIO dont think you are right on that one, and also you state that he played at the highest level of his sport which is as a professional cant find any evidence that he did. Also to use the analogy of the Homeless World Cup the current world champions are Afghanistan with a population of 32,738,376 with your reasoning these players would be notable as they represented their country. Are the players on this side notable enough they represent 32 million people and are world champions? BigDunc^Talk 19:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have regarded Afghan players notable too. There are English players on Wikipedia that are not known by more people than their own football canteen and what is actually going on here, is that many countries in the world are affraid to have the Tibetan National Team playing within their boundaries, just because they are afraid for Chinese sanctions. Because of this the Netherlands trainer of the Olympic Team did cancel his trainings of the Tibetan team, because he was affraid it could be explained politically. The Tibetan Team should have played in Berlin, but Hertha drew back just a day before, and so it goes on and on and on. The Chinese politics of threatening with trade sanctions (inclusive of sanctioning as well) is here on this spot even influencing you my friend: because they have successfully transformed your opinion in neglecting the importance of each player. There are several players that have been threatened personally. Has that local canteen boy from Brittain any time feared such thing to be able to football on a high level??? All these players are notable, no matter how far propaganda and threats may reach outsides boundaries of particular countries. These players are one for one ethnically, culturally, and significantly notable for Wikipedia. Believe me. Davin (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject is as an athlete perhaps already worth keeping. But he is not only an athlete, but also some sort of national symbol and sort of a political activist. If keeping the article is not possible however, I would support merging. Woodwalker (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a notable political activist, he would still have to meet WP:BIO. Where is the evidence of this? it's not even mentioned within the article. If there are no sources to back up your claims, then he does not meet our notability guidelines. Certainly, he does not meet WP:N, and it is only a misconception about part 2 of WP:ATHLETE or the debatable argument that the Tibet national team confers notability, upon which arguments to keep are based. – Toon ^(talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, as a footballer I'm not 100% sure if he is notable enough to keep. If you wish to use the guidelines as a set of definite rules there is always the problem of different possible interpretations. I don't agree with you about misconception, it's just the nature of rules that they can be interpreted in many ways. I think that's probably why people wrote stuff like Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and so on (though neither of these examples aplies here). I feel WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE can be explained in favour of this article too. When in doubt, I'm for keeping. You may feel different. We shall agree to differ then. Woodwalker (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by the way Non-FIFA football is a long article in which the Tibet Team should be cited. There are state football teams that are not recognized by FIFA. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok once more for effect this is not about the team not about a political activist but a footballer who has not played at the highest level of his sport which would be as a professional. This is not some sort of Chinese conspiracy to get Tibetan footballers wiped from wikipedia. BigDunc^Talk 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is because of some kind of conspiracy that the Tibet Team could not play as much as it could have, therefore, yes, there is ironically a kind of conspiracy. For instance, the players could not get Visa to visit France a few years ago ... you can guess why. So, the notability here might be linked to this very conspiracy you look like underestimating.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) They could still be professional. This player could play for a professional club, and he would be notable enough for an entry; but he does not play at that high level for his club or his country. This isn't a political fight, the player just isn't notable enough for an article. – Toon ^(talk) 20:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BigDunc, you made your point, no need to make it again: the disagreement in part is about what the highest level of a sport is. Some might say that your definition is narrow, some might say it is incorrect (and Kobe Bryant, for instance, seems to think so): the highest level for many is representing one's country (and saying that Tibet doesn't count as a country will not help your cause). Not everything needs to be professional to be notable or worthy. And Toon05, how can you say that he did not play at a high level for his country? (Only by implying that Tibet is not a country.) Drmies (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth, and please don't try to make this political. The level at which Tibet play is not high enough to fall into line with e.g. playing for England - even you can admit there would be a class difference. Even those who play for the Andorra national football team (FIFA-affiliated, by the way) aren't necessarily notable enough for a article - but those who play in professional leagues, i.e. have demonstrated that they are actually any good at the sport, are notable enough. Playing for a country doesn't automatically qualify you. Do you know how many players have ever played for all of the countries in the world? Many, many of those are nowhere near notable enough to meet our guidelines. – Toon ^(talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is political--just ask FIFA why they won't recognize a Tibet national team. And you did say he did not play at a high enough level for his country, defining 'high' only as 'professional'--you said it in the very message I responded to. That Tibet couldn't beat England (which I think you mean with 'level') may well be obvious, but that's not the point. And if you go back up in the discussion, you will see that I actually asked the very same questions of the community that you now ask of me, and that I supported a merge as proposed by Dr. Blofeld. Finally, your suggestion that only those who play professionally "are actually any good at the sport," well, that's quite condescending: go tell the Florida Gators offensive line that Tim Tebow is not actually any good at it. It sounds as if you think that WP:Athlete should automatically eliminate every non-professional player--including those who came before professionalization, those who haven't gone pro yet, and those who won't (might cause some problems in track and field, for instance). I simply disagree with declaring 'professionalism' as the sole standard for notability. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA's decision making mechanism may be, but our notability policies aren't. I don't know who the Florida Gators are, nor do I know who Tim Tebow is. Frankly, it doesn't matter. Football (soccer) doesn't operate a collegiate system the way the United States does with its sports, and this wouldn't even be a case parallel. Do you realise that none of the sources in the article even show that he has played in a match for Tibet? So, to sum up: Tenzin Tsering doesn't play for a professional team, does not play in a professional league, and we can't even confirm that he has played for a nation who aren't recognised by the sport's governing body. Not only does this player not meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE in any way, but the article fails WP:V as well. Seriously, there's no way this guy meets our standards for an article. – Toon ^(talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If our notability policy for, for instance, amateur athletes tied everything to a passport and representing a FIFA-certified national team, then yes, our notability policy involves politics too. I don't see how one could deny that (despite the bold print). But I don't believe that our policy is that particular. Look up the Tim Tebow article. He's a great quarterback. Very notable. By the way, European amateur club soccer works very much like American college athletics (to put it another way, if the US didn't have college sports, it probably would have local amateur clubs). The whole issue of professionalism, in my opinion, should not be the only standard. Some in this discussion keep repeating that it's the only standard; well, that's fine if you believe that, but WP practice obviously does not adhere to that standard. Again, look at Tim Tebow, or Tyler Hansbrough. Amateurs! At a pretty darn high level. And very notable. Note that I haven't said anything about Tsering himself--I'm all for merging, and I agree that in some ways he does not meet the standards, but in some other ways he does. High level, sure. National, even if it's not for a 'country', that's high enough. If all that's true, of course. But this rigid adherence to 'professional'...it bugs me. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tebow and Hansbrough obviously satisfy WP:BIO; Tsering obviously does not. There is no need to invoke WP:ATHLETE to suggest that Tebow or Hansbrough are notable. In short, they are totally irrelevant to the discussion here. Jogurney (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's an answer that's quite helpful (though it doesn't address the more philosophical questions I have). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It appears that Davin is canvassing for support on this AfD here, here and is telling editors when to comment here. BigDunc^Talk 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Dutch but it appears that canvassing was done on the Dutch wiki too here and here. BigDunc^Talk 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this was indeed canvassing, and the user was also invoking the value of such articles to Buddhism on the Wiki. – Toon ^(talk) 22:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was canvassing (I do read Dutch). But considering this, is that not the pot calling the kettle black? (And I know how "professional football actually functions," thank you very much.) "This discussion is mainly politically motivated"--to entice those who think 'professionalism' excludes politics to come and vote here? Drmies (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not canvassing at all. I was working on exactly the same articles in Dutch too. Don;t throw with dirt. Davin (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was an action in reply to Jmorrison230582 major canvassing action He even puts it in small but he is only asking football deletionist to react. Don't blame me when I ask three people to react, when just one reacts. You're just discrediting others to win your deletionist stance and are blind for the fact that here is a notable football player at stake. Don't use massive propaganda to win your point and tear down the fact that I noticed just very single persons. Davin (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hell of a stretch to call placing a notice of the afd debate on a relevant project page "canvassing". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another massive Football deletionist canvas action This is really beyond any sense of reason to call up single issue football deletionist in your attack of the article. Reason enough that this article should never be deleted! When so many games are played, there may not be enough reasons be left for arguing. Davin (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know where you get this "single issue football deletionist" idea from. WP:FOOTY gets attacked a lot for being too inclusive, in fact - I don't see how getting people who work with footballer articles all of the time to come and take a look at a footballer AfD can be wrong? I didn't ask them to vote a particular way. Perhaps my phrasing was a little too honest, but certainly there are arguments here presuming that playing at amateur level in a professional sport would satisfy WP:ATHLETE - WP:FOOTY members are pretty active with the development of this notability guideline - it's clear that they would be helpful generating consensus. This on the other hand, is clearly very different. – Toon ^(talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject fails WP:BIO as they don't seem to have had any non-trivial third party coverage, and they fail WP:ATHLETE as they do not play at a professional level of football (playing at the highest level of amateur sport only counts if the sport has no professional level on a worldwide scale, not just in a single country). – PeeJay 22:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO is not correct. He has played 4 years in the Tibet national football team that is performing within the Viva World Cup. Davin (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as he doesn't play for a professional club (in what is clearly a professional sport not an amateur one) or a FIFA recognised national team (the way I understand it the Tibet team would be similar to catalonia). Also as far as I can see he fails WP:BIO as i'm unable to find much in the way of third party sources. Basement12 (T.C) 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According tot WP:ATHLETE a player should have "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". The Tibet national football team is the highest for Tibetans to play in: it represents 6 million Tibetans in exile and those in Tibet if they were allowed to know of them. The article doesn't fail WP:BIO Davin (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article does fail WP:BIO as there are no non-trivial sources about this player ("non-trivial" means "not just a stats site", btw). Whether or not he passes WP:ATHLETE is debatable, but he certainly doesn't pass it by virtue of having played at the highest level of amateur sport since football has a professional level, and this player has not played at a professional level. – Pee Jay 10:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to have played for Tibet so fails WP:ATHLETE. Sources are trivial so fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, please look at the facts Davin (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The facts I looked, used as sources, show he has played zero games for Tibet. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In Asia things are not so documented as in the West, so something is not a fact when it's not documented in English. Look alone at Wikipedia Tibetan": just 236 articles. Your wisdom is looking with closed eyes. In all the refrences given, this player is mentioned. Davin (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Peanut4. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He meets WP:BIO for playing in the Tibet national football team that is performing within the Viva World Cup and represents 6 million Tibetans in exile. He meets WP:ATHLETE for meeting the fact that "competed at the highest amateur level of a sport".
  This football team and every single player is very important for Tibetans in exile. Please watch for instance the film The Cup of film director Khyentse Norbu which shows that football is very popular in other regions as well, although the quality of football there has to still develop. Some ethic peoples cannot change the fact that they don't have a country for them selves and that FIFA neglects them not because they want to but because they are under pressure to choose that. Wikipedia does NOT follows world diplomacy rules! Davin (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where's the evidence that he has actually played for Tibet? Let's look at the references provided in the article: the first link shows that he has played 0 games and scored 0 goals in the years 2005 to 2009. The second link shows he was selected for a tour of Denmark in 2003, but there's no evidence that he played. The third link shows him a team photo, again providing no evidence that he has actually played for them. The fourth link shows that he was selected in the squad for a tournament in 2008, again providing no evidence that he actually played. There's no evidence that he has played at international level, nor does he play professional club football, therefore he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. As far as WP:BIO is concerned, this can only be met if there are multiple, reliable, non-trivial third-party sources on the subject - there appears to be none of that whatsoever. He clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:N, and as tccn has demonstrated above, he also fails WP:V as the claim that he has played for the Tibet national team cannot be verified. Bettia (rawr!) 11:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence to suggest he's ever competed at any level, sure he's on the team list but none of the references provided (and none that I can find online or elsewhere) say he's actually played a game for either Tibet or Mundgod. The lack of any information about him in local, national or international coverage seems to be pointing out that he's not even notable in his own area of the world. Nanonic (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:ATHLETE. The 'amateur notability' section of this guideline is only applicable for sports which have no professional competitions. Football is a professional sport. Player has not played for a professional club team, nor has he competed in a professional international game sanctioned by FIFA, the world governing body. Until this player plays for a professional team, or Mundgod FC is promoted into the Indian League, or Tibet plays in a competitive game sanctioned by FIFA, he is non-notable. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Peanut4. I also see no real evidence for the inclusion of this athlete. Govvy (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these links ([16], [17], [18]) provide the sum total of what we know about the subject, we simply cannot write an article on him. If anyone could establish, using secondary reliable sources that he is notable as a symbol for Tibetans in exile, that could be useful and a reason to reconsider. But as it stands, the subject is being judged as an athlete and in that capacity, he fails notability requirements. Abecedare (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete per JonBroxton and also fails WP:Notability, our gold standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia by virtue of lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails one of our core policies, verifiability since we are unable to check that the material in the article has been published by a reliable source; none of the references in the article are reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should the articles on other players listed at Tibet national football team#Current squad not be added to this debate? A quick inspection of those articles shows they are all along the same lines as this one; play for unprofessional clubs, almost identical flimsy sources that don't prove they ever played for Tibet, which may not confer notability in any case. Of the 22 players listed only Tashi Tsering seems to have played for a professional club or to have played FIFA recognised internationls (for Nepal), but there is no source to prove any of that. Basement12 (T.C) 13:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Potts[edit]

Appears to be unremarkable actor and TV extra. Own webpage ([19]) gives little reason for notability, and nothing that would pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Note that Coronation St and Brookside parts were very minor. Black Kite 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under WP:CREATIVE. Although the person's television career is not very significant; his only notable role is in Coronation Street that lasted for 36 episodes, he has received quite a bit of praise for his work in theatre. Particularly as script writer ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]). All this considered, I still feel that the person may not completely pass WP:CREATIVE, but is worth keeping. ^LeaveSleaves 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per addition of sources found by Leave. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep After having NOW expanded and sourced the article. It now reflects his having recieved significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burdine[edit]

Orphaned, unreferenced, serves as a disambig page to a single name, and that's the name of a fictional character in a TV show JaGa^talk 18:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page which I have done. This page serves as a useful dab page for William Burdine Blake, Sr., Burdine Stadium, and Burdines. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per transformation into useful disambig page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a useful dabpage to me. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Linguist At Large. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep now. --Lockley (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Raheem Glaiati[edit]

Contested PROD. There is no evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:N or allow a full, neutral biography to be written about this individual. In addition, in its current form at least, it also fails WP:V. As I stated on the talk page of the user who removed the PROD, I did the obvious Google/Google News/Google Scholar searches, then a JSTOR search that can locate articles in many English language publications as far back as the 1800s (as someone who could be classified as an intellectual, I felt that it might be an appropriate search), then a search of University of Texas libraries (obviously a "random" library so to speak, but one with a very significant collection). I would search in Arabic as well but, as no sources exist (that I have been able to locate) that include the spelling of his name in Arabic, I cannot do so. A good faith search has not detected any sources in English and until the name is transliterated back into proper Arabic, English is all that we've got. Cheers, CP 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete unfortunately. I suspect that one could find sources sufficient to establish notability if one could get access to the egyptian national archives of newspapers from the early 20th century and spoke arabic well enough to understand what was there. If someone ever bothers to do that, they're welcome to re-create (and after all, i'm just assuming stuff could be found). As it stands now, no reliable sources to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I poked around and found hints of historical significance (if not notability proper). According to penatlas.org, the paper (of which he was the first editor) was an important outlet for literature at the time in question. The current text on the WP stub is lifted directly from here, though (or is it the other way around?) Jlg4104 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the basis that editor of a major newspaper is notability, even if little else can be found becauseo f cultural bias. DGG (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wanting, hoping, and believing subject should be notable does not make it so. I couldn't find any sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Move to Abdul Raheem Glailati The reason that sources cannot be found is that his name was Glailati not Glaiati. The original contributor was FrancisTyers who was a significant contributor from December 2004 to September 2006. A review of his edits indicate a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies. At the time of his edits, as someone has noted elsewhere, there was not the stress upon sources that we see today. It looks as though the source for this was part of the library research (not OR) that FrancisTyers found when writing the article on Sudanese literature. In back-tracking that, I found the article that provided this basic information. It was: El-Nour, Eiman (1997) "The Development of Contemporary Literature in Sudan" Research in African Literatures Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 150-162 which is commercially available electronically from JSTOR, EBSCO or Questa. It says in part on page 151, "The editor who played a significant role in the development of Sudanese published literature, however, was Abdul Raheem Glailati, who was a well-known writer and poet. Under his editorship the newspaper flourished and reached a wide readership. He welcomed contributions from established as well as unknown poets and writers. Glailati's poems were often recited during special religious occasions, like the Prophet's birthday celebrations. In 1911, he printed a collection of his poems in a pamphlet that he entitled Masamat al-rabf (Spring breezes). This was the very title he was to use in 1923 when he published a collection of revolutionary, nationalist poetry, selections of which were also read on the occasion of the Prophet's birthday. The public acclaim that greeted any poetic composition by Glailati caused the colonizers a great deal of concern. In order to avoid any stirrings of nationalist feelings in the country, Glailati was arrested in 1917 and deported to Egypt following the publication of an article in which he described the poverty and misery of the Sudanese people." Now that he is correctly identified, additional library research should provide additional substantiation, if it is required. --Bejnar (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Before I'm willing to withdraw (contingent on, of course, all the others who voted delete), I need to clear up a bit of confusion. I read that excerpt on jstor and it looks promising, but it does not particularly solve the issue that I brought up when nominating this article. I repeated all of the above searches with the term "Abdul Raheem Glailati" and did not find any more sources except for, of course, the one that Bejnar has provided. The source also does not clarify the spelling of his name in Arabic, which does not allow me to search in that language and see what sources might be available. Furthermore, it raises a big question: if he is as important as El-Nour has suggested, why aren't there more easily available sources to show this? I'm sure that you will agree that there are many, many individuals noted in a single journal article that are touted as being notable and important, but that does not make it so. I really do appreciate all the work that Bejnar has done and commend him for it, but I am personally even more convinced that he does not merit an article upon seeing this. Before, I was a little weary that I had missed something and uncertain; now that I see what has been missed, it has not solved the grand sourcing riddle. After all, there is not one Google, Google Scholar or UT Library hit under this name. So I don't mean to be uncivil, but this article is, in my opinion, far from saved as has been suggested below.
- Now, having been a jerk, I do want to emphasize that one or two more sources like the one above would convince me that this individual merits an article. Until I see them, however, I do not believe in keeping an article based on theoretical sources, as that quickly becomes a very slippery slope. Cheers, CP 06:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for electronic sources, he was publishing in Arabic in the 1910s and 1920s in Sudan and Egypt. I have listed two probable sources on his talk page under Additional sources, but I am nowhere near a large library and I do not read Arabic. Are you CP near a large library that might have the N.E.A., Journal of research on North East Africa or near Harvard which has Al-Fikr al-Sudani: Usuluhu wa tatawwuruhu (Sudanese thought: its origins and development)? I strongly suspect that he appears in both of those publications. He might well be in the Historical Dictionary of the Sudan which has at least three separate editions, but again I don't have access to that. I would request your assistance in tracking down these other sources, or alternatively, your forbearance for a couple of months, as tracking down these hard copy sources is not a matter of a few days, unless you are in Boston. --Bejnar (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small addendum: One of the purposes of the Wikipedia was to bring information to the people via the Internet precisely because it was not readily available electronically. So the lack of availability of electronic sources should hold no weight for pre-Internet activities. With regard to having searched the UT catalog, I hope that you don't predicate notability upon a person having a book written about them. --Bejnar (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that my point is being entirely missed here. Wikipedia is here to reproduce, in an encyclopedic fashion, material and information that is already available. It is not here to make exciting new discoveries of people we really ought to know more about but don't. I'm a "Middle Eastern" scholar, I would love to create articles on dozens of individuals that I think were important to the development of the reason, but without the sources, I can't. Yours could be a never-ending process. Those books may establish his notability, then again they may not. Maybe there's other books at Harvard, at other libraries, in other countries or on a cave in the moon. There always could be material somewhere in some capacity. Wikipedia, however, is only for what we can verify. It is not my job, nor desire, to spend all my time tracking down sources for you to prove that this person is not notable. It is the onus of the person who added the entry in the first place to prove it is notable. If you later find that information is available, no one is going to salt the page and prevent you from recreating it. I am not going to go an unreasonable amount out of my way to prove that this individual isn't notable when the original creator did not do the same to prove that they are notable. I could go on, but I think I'll stop here; people reviewing this deletion discussion I think can decide for themselves what standards and visions they hold for Wikipedia. Yours and mine are simply different, and that doesn't necessarily make either of us wrong or right. Cheers, CP 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per source. I am very glad that Bejnar has been able to save this article.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source establishes enough to keep the article and expand when we find more sources. There is no reason to delete an article that is reliably sourced on a notable topic.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this as part of the work on "combatting systematic bias", as an aside during my research for the (still pitiful) article on Sudanese literature. Thanks for Bejnar for adding the source, which I think I probably found but didn't add. I'll take another look through JSTOR etc. to see if I can find more info. Just because there is little information in English does not mean that something or someone is not-notable. - Francis Tyers · 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt i applaud your intent and efforts francis. But the problem isn't a bias against arabic/other foreign language sources. The problem is the absence of citations to establish notability. That is, it's a bias against unsourced info that isn't verifiable as a consequence. It's my assumption that sources are theoretically findable (egyptian archives etc...) but absent someone going and finding them, well, you get my drift.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the following in ``Mohammed Nuri El-Amin (1986) "Britain, The 1924 Sudanese Uprising, and the Impact of Egypt on the Sudan". International Journal of African Historical Studies 19(2)``

The above view, though most flattering to arden Sudanese nationalists, still flies in the face of much testimony to the contrary. In the first place, there is enough evidence to prove that the Egyptian nationalists had been active in the first stirring of nationalism in the Sudan as early as 1912 or 1913. For instance it is generally agreed that Ra'id al-Sudan, which appeared in 1913 as an Arabic supplement to the Greek-owned Sudan Herald, provided a forum which socially and politically aware Sudanese of all generations used to air their feelings, frustrations, and aspirations, as well as to reflect in the very general, vague and indirect ways the sort of modern Muslim-Arab society to which they aspired.[13] It is also generally accepted that the real moving spirit behind all that was its editor -- 'Abd al-RAhim Qulaylat, a Syrian who worked at the Railways Department and a literary figure of some renown at the time in the Sudan. Although Qulaylat certainly played a role in the ferment the real fore was a scarcely known Egyptian nationalist -- Muhammad Tawfiq Wahba[14]

13. For an assessment of the role of Ra'id al-Sudan in assisting the budding nationalist movement, see Mahjub Muhammad Salih, al-Sahafa al-Sudaniyya fi niaf Qarn (Sudanese Press in Half a Century), 1903--1953 (Khartoum, 1971), 38--48

There is more, but I'll paste it on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another source: Heather J. Sharkey (1999) "A Century in Print: Arabic Journalism and Nationalism in Sudan 1899-1999", International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 31. pp. 534-549 (see talk page) - Francis Tyers · 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say all of these sources, if only partial, are more than enough for a keep and expand.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources have been presented to make the subject notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the additional sources added to the article and listed on its talk page. I also find Tyers' argument about systematic bias persuasive, not as a reason for keeping an unsourced article but for keeping one that is sourced somewhat sketchily. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Bejnar and User:F-m-t have clearly established that the article is sourcable and the subject is likely sail above the notability guidelines. Actually sourcing it may take some time and effort given the subject's country, language and non-recentism, but in the meantime it would be better to keep the article and have editors work on it. Abecedare (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oizea Type[edit]

Unable to find any significant independent coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Bongo matic 17:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an ad. Searches turn up nothing but a couple ads and spam-like blog posts by "Oizea Hatcher." Even in these, it's presented as a "prototype." Jlg4104 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Hameed[edit]

Bio of a Pakistani physician. Although some of the claims in the article sound impressive at first sight (discovery of a new strain of a pathogen, for instance), Hameed was just part of the team that accomplished this and not even its principal investigator (and even if he had done this all by himself, I don't think that discovering a strain of pathogen - a fairly commin thing, after all - makes one notable). The article also contains a few links to articles published in (mainly Pakistani) medical journals. GScholar indicates that one article published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology was cited 76 times, but Hameed was only second of three authors for that paper (the least important position). No other paper has received significant citations. Searching for "A Hameed" gives more results, but these seem to concern different people. Web of Science gives lots of articles for "Hameed A" (and even more for "Hameed A*"), but again this mostly concerns other people with the same name. (The JAAD article gets 43 citations in WoS, by the way). Restricting the search to those articles that list either Harvard or Shifa as affiliation, renders 7 papers, with 43 (JAAD), 21, 16, 5, 4, 1, and 0 citations (the last one appears to be a meeting abstract). There is one link in the article to a very short newspaper item, on a warning about overusing medicated soaps. Taken together, this does not appear to meet either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Crusio (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. A single paper that's moderately widely cited is not sufficient. DGG (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. According to a list of his publications[26] he's published 17 papers; a number of these are in Pakistani journals whose importance I don't know, but among the remainder, Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, British Journal of Dermatology, Clinics in Dermatology & Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology are all reasonably prestigious international dermatology journals (despite the fact that we seem to lack articles on all of them). The paper that's been moderately highly cited appears to be a meta-analysis rather than a clinical study. Discovering a new strain of a parasite isn't particularly noteworthy. Membership of an editorial board of a national journal, while contributing to notability, certainly isn't sufficient alone. I'm uncertain of the prestige of Shifa College of Medicine, but according to our article, it seems to be a small college founded in 1999 so that I am not sure that even a head of department would be inherently notable (also the college website doesn't list him as head of department). The only evidence that he teaches at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine comes from the SkinDoc website; he doesn't seem to be listed in their faculty.[27] All in all, this seems an average academic record, insufficient as yet to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per DGG and detailed analysis by Espresso Addict. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF either, nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was created by Headhunter2008 (talk · contribs), who signed themselves as "Professor Dr. Ahsan Hameed Professor of Dermatology" here: [28] (as well as including a lot of irrelevant promotional links to Hameed's web profiles). Espresso Addict (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC at present. Abecedare (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Econcern[edit]

Article is a thinly-veiled advertisement for the company and its founder, Ad van Wijk, who presumably controls Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts Special:Contributions/CC_MeK and Special:Contributions/MegaMad. It could potentially be speedily deleted under CSD G11. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, the advertisement here isn't even thinly veiled, it's pretty blatant. However, it can be rewritten and the subject is plenty notable-- see, for instance, this article in the Telegraph, this slightly more than passing mention in the Times, and this brief mention of a significant project in De Tijd. I don't think we can or should delete this, though I agree that the spam here is thick enough to feed a family. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ In sufficient notability. Keep Telegraph story is substantial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urban alteration game[edit]

Non notable game. Appears to have no coverage beyond its own website and Wiki. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources available ^{Google, Google News} that would indicate notability or verify the subject. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence to support notability. But it sounds cool. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Mason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Taylor Mason

I see no evidence of notability here, and it looks suspiciously like there could be a conflict of interest. It is definitely an advert - how it has survived this long I don't know! Deb (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Known as “The Comedian of Clean” by CBN and the 700 Club as shown here. [29]. Also as quoted on Business Wire …” Taylor Mason, using his own brand of puppets and ventriloquism, ... his career most recently earning him an Emmy(R) Award for his TV pilot, "Bananas." [30], makes me go Keep. Rewrite yes, deletion No. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good work Shoeees. It definitely needs a rewrite and sources, but he meets notability requirements. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Shoessss. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmm. I'm seeing some evidence that Americans have heard of this person, then. Just bear in mind that the rest of the world hasn't! Deb (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - You don't know that for sure. Also, it doesn't matter if Americans are the only ones that heard of him if he passes WP:BIO. There is no inclusion criteria that says that people must be known in multiple countries or everywhere in the world. Schuym1 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest republics in Asia[edit]

One of this article's fatal flaws is its failure to define terms - neither "earliest", nor "republics" nor "Asia" is defined, and even if we accept "republics" to mean Republic and "Asia" to mean Asia, "earliest" remains a deeply problematic term: we are told of three "earliest" republics existing ca. 600 BC and one existing in 1924. Surely both cannot qualify as "earliest", separated as they are by a span of some 2500 years! And then there are the obvious problems of no references, very probable synthesis and original research (ie, no third-party sources have dealt with all these republics at once under the rubric of "earliest republics in Asia"), etc. If there's any useful content, take it elsewhere, but this merits deletion. (And by the way, the whole topic could be improved: see for instance Mahajanapadas and marvel at footnote 14!) Biruitorul ^Talk 17:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nom. There is also an OR problem, in that there's a claim being made that somehow a definable (but undefined) thing called a republic existed, then vanished, then reappeared 2500 years later. What kind of historiographic concept could account for such a phenomenon? The individual items here could be added to List_of_republics easily enough, at least those not already there. Jlg4104 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another article from the early "sources shmources!" days of Wikipedia. A good article could probably be written about non-monarchial governments that existed prior to the 18th century, not just in Asia but elsewhere. As it is, even the links don't explain much about what made these "republics". Mandsford (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that there might be the germ of a good article somewhere in this mess of uncited OR... but to get to it would require gutting the article to the point where we would essentially be starting over from scratch anyway. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"OR ELSE?" :) Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and OR magnet. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

João P Vieira[edit]

No justification for notability. Also there may be a conflict of interest here; the text of this article seems to have been originally written by User:Jvieira on his user page in 2004. —Bkell (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the notability test unless articles about the subject in third-party sources are provided, not merely those written by the subject. Terraxos (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite a spammy autobiography. There don't seem to be any significant or relevant English-language news hits, and no references are present to prove the claims within the article. Failing WP:N and WP:V. – Toon ^(talk) 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadio[edit]

Delete Article reads as spam and is not notable. It was tagged as speedy until the article creator removed that tag (apparently. either that or the article was previously deleted then recreated. I AGF here and assumed the latter). I then prodded for that reason. Article creator removed the prod without any indication on the talk page. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The things you learn searchin' the web: people can't spell the word cardio, George Sand wrote a work named "Cadio", and there is a Philippine entrepreneur that promotes his/her technology using a scanned image of a 9 year-old Manila Bulletin article. All joking aside, Cadio is certainly not notable per WP:CORP. FWIW, here is the authoritative web site. (If you are into obscure tech products such as this there is a semi-interesting history here... but "interesting" does, of course, not mean notable.) —Noah 08:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Hi CaveatLector. Yes, you are right, it was deleted before. I never complained about the deletion of my article because I don't have yet my references. I don't know how to put links to it. Now, having these references, I could come up with a petition. If you will delete this article, then what's the point of having a legal reference. Meaning, the reference does not only pertains to the book's content but shows a certificate of copyright registration and deposit in the Philippines. Hi ChildofMidnight. That's not a problem, then tell me how it can be a sufficient notability. Hi Noah_Salzman. The site that you are referring to is where I got the reference of cadio. I can put a link on it and make that website as one of the references. You did a great research Noah and I appreciate it. User:Andygold7 10:07 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Negligible notability. Tim Ross (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim Ross. You are giving a comment without explaining your point. Can you give a more precise explanation on the issue. User:Andygold7 8:40 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Andygold, please make sure to only use a bolded statement (such as "Keep") once. If you're confused about something, use Comment. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spazmosity[edit]

No coverage in reliable sources. Albums were deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. No claim of notability, so possible speedy. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for already stated reasons. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Curnow[edit]

Was an expired WP:PROD. After deletion User:Apotek31 came to my talk page and asked me to restore it. — Aitias // discussion 16:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup. The subject seems notable enough (with a National Geographic article and his own book). More references could probably be found. The topic of PTSD seems off course, and could probably be removed as irrelevant to the topic of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability by Wikipedia standards as it lacks references, and likely a conflict of interest because of the level of detail despite no refs. National Geographic World is a kid's magazine, book appears to be self-published. Seems like a great guy, but needs more citations to reliable third-party sources. Katr67 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Apotek31 asked why "my page" was deleted, but article was created by User:Kcirtap33. The similarity in usernames makes me wonder if this user is inadvertently using multiple accounts? Both these editors seem connected to the silverplanet.com website: silverplanet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . It makes me kind of suspicious about Spam and conflict of interest, though it's possible the user simply forgot his/her original password. Would one of the users care to explain? Katr67 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To answer your question Katr67, I simply ask my collaborator Kcirtap33 to help me out uploading the article I wrote. Thank you very much for your feedback. I will upload a revised version of this article according to your comments as Dr. Curnow pioneer work in the field of veterinary science in the US definitively deserve its place in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotek31 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial notability. This would need real sources, as Katr says above. DGG (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good evidence of notability and I see more is being added. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as prodder. But looking at the refs we have SilverPlanet, which is less than a year old, so not sure the level of notability this confers on the subject for the 2 sources using this source (two me its minimal). The fact that he has a published book, doesn't mean much if it is self published (don't know, but publisher does both). Also, no notability is conferred by the source of that publisher since its not 3rd party. And the minutes from a meeting are primary sources, thus again confer no notability. Seems like a nice guy, but my dad is too. And I'm not going to write an article on my dad if he publishes a book (unless its a NYT bestseller). Aboutmovies (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say this is at the bare minimum for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional references were added to the article as further proof of Gene's notability in the field of veterinary practice. Another article introducing the mobile pet clinic - a concept pioneered by Gene - is also underway Kcirtap33. —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Zak Martin[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coates (supercomputer)[edit]

Delete (previously speedied, and recreated) per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Mayalld (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, there are many placeholding works in progress pertaining to things soon to happen in the collection. I would hope you leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnkline (talk • contribs) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even the smallest stubs are supposed to be about things that ~~do or have existed~~ (I should say meet WP policy guidelines). See also Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As it stands, the article reads like PR for Purdue. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be notable (yet). Note that most of the third-party sources linked in the article are actually talking about Steele (supercomputer), this computer's predecessor. JulesH (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "to be built." When it's built and becomes notable, an article then may be appropriate. Jlg4104 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fading of life[edit]

Delete. Apparently non-notable demo album; only the band's own website is cited as a source. Russ (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable demo album from a non-notable demo band that also be deleted; no coverage, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vaporizer#Byproducts of vaporized cannabis. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vapor duff[edit]

Contested prod. The article seems to consist of original research. The sources provided are forum threads, which do not fulfill requirements for verifiable third-party sources. FInally, it is very short but could be a possible candidate for merging; the information could be moved to Marijuana if a reliable source for it is found. Bonadea (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Marijuana
Redirect to Vaporizer#Byproducts of vaporized cannabis. NVO (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NVO above - no reason for a separate article here. Terraxos (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (WP:NAC)--Jmundo (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans[edit]

~~The article falls under WP:SYNTH. The general topic is media bias already covered by others articles.~~Nomination withdrawn. Plenty of sources.--Jmundo (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Juzhong (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; notable topic; sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. Badagnani (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted G3 as a hoax. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley winters[edit]

I've declined a speedy request, because it contains strong notability assertions, but I'm struggling to find any relevant RS hits at all, which make me suspect either I'm using the wrong search terms, or there's a typo in the name or (and my strongest hunch) this is a hoax. Help ascertaining which is the case will be gratefully received. Dweller (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely a hoax, no such artist has had any charting singles or albums in the UK, never mind the huge sales alleged -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clear hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Dirty[edit]

Non-notable musician. Speedy declined. Prod declined. So, on to AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see anything to suggest this artist is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. John Sloan (view / chat) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think WP:CSD#A7 could well apply here. John Sloan (view / chat) 16:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A7 WAS applied, but denied. Once a speedy is denied, it cannot be renominated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But my point about this article needing deletion sooner rather than later still stands. John Sloan (view / chat) 16:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Makaylamac (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its started to smell like dirty socks around here! John Sloan (view / chat) 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Page story regarding Fantasia and Dutch Dirty

Music is available on any peer-to-peer sharing network, and articles thru any search engine. Artist is unsigned and not found on a "Major" label's website, but the artist has a very sizeable fanbase, and is represented by a "major" management company (T-Pain's mother's "GoldFire Ent.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyarealgoon (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, the music notability guidelines, by any means. Tons of non-notable musicians are on peer to peer networks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I added a reflist and section for it so the references would be more visible... but there are only self-publications listed. The article seems to be languishing.
Further...I see no note that the speedy was declined. The speedy flag was deleted reapeatedly by Coreyarealgoon and last by Makaylamac, but there is no history entry for the declined speedy...apologies if I have misunderstood.sinneed (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right sinneed, the CSD tag was not declined. I have now re-tagged. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sole claim of notability appears to be that he might have stood on a stage with a notable artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, well, been otherwise associated with a notable artist. Still not notable.sinneed (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - ok, WTF does it matter if You have never heard of the artist in question? Do you not have anything better to do than to discuss whether or not an up-and-coming regional artist merits to have a wikipedia page or not? Obviously he has a substantial fanbase and an established stagename. Would it really destroy Wikipedia's standing to have a page included on Dutch Dirty?

Makaylamac (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia policy MUST be adhered to, simple. Secondly, you can not !vote twice. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for correcting me on the whole voting twice thing. My bad, my bad... But I do hope his page stays though

Makaylamac (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stagename, yes. (I've had a couple of them, too.) Notability, not yet. Come back later when fame (or notoriety) is more evident. Peridon (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN, no reliable sources. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another "up and coming" artist who's not notable yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Martin Petcare[edit]

Blatant advertising. Tagged since October but no improvement made. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A company that holds in excess of 25% of the pet care industry in the UK, as shown here, [31], is pretty notable to me. Likewise, did you do a quick Google News search? I was able to find multiple sources as shown here, [32]. Overall, I think it is a keeper. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page for a discussion on those "sources". It may well merit an article, but not an advert. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see were you are coming from, not a problem. I’ll redo it tonight. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the article may not be the best possible, but it doesn't appear to be blatant advertising to me. It is an article that discusses a branded entity; information about the company's market share, history and leadership would improve it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing any promotional language in the current version and the basic difference since its nomination is the addition of references. It is a leading company and the reference backs it up --> notability established. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEAR System[edit]

Non notable martial arts organisation, look like an advert, almost a speedy.

See also the Martial arts project essay on notability Nate 14 81 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 14:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete has some name recognition in martial arts--I knew this was Tony Blauer's approach before opening the article's page--but no evidence of wider notability. Written with lots of ad-hype of dubious merit. Is Tony Blauer notable? I don't know but I lean toward Yes [33], [34], [35], [36]. If so, redirecting to a page created for him would be reasonable. JJL (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definately needs some help and some more sources, but they system itself is notable as a departure from the traditional defensive tactics and because it's being used by a wide range or agencies. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable form of self defence, especially as it's being taken up by the British police replacing the LINE method most forces use. I've trimmed the article so it contains the bare (but notable) bones, it does need expansion though. For some reason, I can't get the 'See also' and 'References' headers to appear in the article though. --Factorylad (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment there was a missing </ref> tag. Does [37] mean that U.K. LEOs are actually being trained in this system, or that it's approved for some type of optional, additional training? JJL (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for that. I was hoping to find something on ACPO's website as that would be a better reference, however there isn't anything. The SPEAR System is being introduced to all police services in England & Wales to replace current the Personal Defence Training, which takes most of it's influence from the outdated LINE system and will roll out from 2009. --Factorylad (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment a good reference verifying that fact would certainly change me to a keep. JJL (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Qualifies as being notable for inclusion. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have reffed what I can from the official website. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment [38] That isn't an official site, its one publishing a press release --Nate1481 15:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, sorry. But it still acts as a reference, considering it is a press release. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No probs, just thought I'd clarify, seen to many arts claim police training etc, with no grounds but quick google lends support. Oddly I can't find a cosponsoring ACPO release which is a little odd. the UK police are often unervinglly media savy. --Nate 14 81 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Filipi[edit]

No source that the youth player has made his debut on Lega Pro Prima Divisione Matthew_hk t c 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable youth player, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no senior international appearances, not played in professional league, not yet made it big, recreate if and when...ClubOranje^Talk 11:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas reed thompson[edit]

Asserts notability, but original tagger for deletion felt it was overly promotional. Sources at present are to a press release. Dlohcierekim 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient ntoability per inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources appear to all be different copies of the same press release. This does not meet the requirement of significant coverage from reliable sources. Dlohcierekim 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks evidence of notability, possibly advertising. Terraxos (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published (both Heliographica and Lulu are print-on-demand), no real sources, promotional tone. Possible G11 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Hoxha[edit]

A youth player playing in ALLIEVI REGIONALI, the third youth team. Matthew_hk t c 14:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youth team players are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Delete this page, then recreate it if and when he makes his first team debut at a professional level. Bettia (rawr!) 09:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no senior international appearances, not played in professional league, up and comer maybe but not yet made it big, recreate if and when...ClubOranje^Talk 11:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason White (singer-songwriter)[edit]

No real assertation of notability, except that he wrote a controversial song for Tim McGraw. Absolutely no sources found for either band that he played for, and nothing about Jason himself except for his song. Writing one song for a notable act doesn't make one notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough here to justify notability --Mblumber (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Curtis (Footballer)[edit]

This article has been nominated for speedy deletion and PRODded, but the tags were removed without a reason given, by the creator. This shows no notability. Boleyn (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a semi-professional footballer who has not even played at the eighth level in England, he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability criteria. Dancarney (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a playing career at a lowly amateur level and working for a pro club in an obscure back-office role do not add up to notability.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't achieved notoriety per nom and above comments. --ClubOranje^Talk 13:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly fails player notability standards, and the only thing remotely interesting (his job at Cardiff City) doesn't confer notability in this field. Bettia (rawr!) 11:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Garten[edit]

Was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason "actor does not seem to meet notability requirements; IMDB page is empty and very few web references". An empty IMDB may mean there are verifiability issues elsewhere, but the article clearly has references to evaluate and a lack of web references is not a good reason for deletion, speedy or otherwise. Bringing it here for a proper discussion instead. Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single, uncredited role does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I have found no evidence that she has had other roles. Decltype (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Schuym1 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per guidelines for notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N this falls a long way short BillyBobPedant (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of limited series[edit]

Contested prod, the reason was woefully incomplete, and will get stupidly out of control if it gets even part way to completion. To me, it seems the list is quite indiscriminate and it has no sources to rely on. Tone 11:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The see also section list separate lists for Spider-Man and another character which suggests reworking the list per character and spinning out lists for Batman and others might be viable. Do you have any sources to prove it's woefully incomplete (indicating the number of such comics). To me the inclusion criteria seem clear and very strict. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wikipedia is also woefully incomplete, and stupidly out of control. This list has clear and strict inclusion criteria, and is far most informative than a category. Juzhong (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every list for an ongoing activity is inherently incomplete, so thats not a reason for deletion. and almost every list needs mroe work, so neither is that. This is considerably better already than I would have expected, and if there is interest in working on it, it should be here. DGG (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, 6, 10, and 11. If kept, move to a title like List of limited comic book series. When I first saw this title I thought of a completely different type of series. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add reference for each item, and move to List of limited comic book series. Abecedare (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luego[edit]

Article was tagged as speedy candidate, but it claims the band made a tour. If this tour was national or international WP:MUSIC says they're notable, so it warrants further discussion instead of speedy deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The tour mentioned is not a typically sponsored tour, showing on their website that one of their biggest venues, NYC, brought out 40 people. I believe the spirit of a national tour is one that is less sporadic than playing small nightclubs within a certain region. I'd feel more comfortable if the band had an LP to promote, but even that's not the case. ^Law_shoot! 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable band. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Schadler[edit]

This article was tagged as a speedy, but it doesn't apply. Article is obviously in a bad state, but a clear claim of notability is made. I'm bringing it hear to find out if the article is actually verifiable and if said awards indicate notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a google search for this actor returns three hits: Wikipedia, an award for a school production in 2008, and an appearance for three days in a college production in October 2008. The only sources given in the article itself are blogs. The Seven Angels Theatre Halo Awards are High School awards for the Waterbury Region of Connecticut [39]. In other words, non-notable. -- role^player 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS if you read the article part of the training hasn't happened yet: Emerson College: B.A. Theatre Studies Performance 2012 -- role^player 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to notability issues, the article is entirely constructed in the unambiguous format of an actor's résumé. As such, it fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a resume, and lacks evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hetty King (disambiguation)[edit]

Superfluous dab page made redundant by existing hatnote. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't hurt. And useful for research purpose since it appears in Category:Human name disambiguation pages. --Edcolins (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless and orphaned. WP:NOHARM is no reason to keep. Listing in a category is no reason to keep an otherwise useless page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two is the minimal number for a disambiguation page. Having more than one way to navigate to articles is better than just one way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As ever, two is the minimum if there is no primary topic; four is the minimum with a primary topic, although threes will also be kept (threes can be handled with ((two other uses)) on the base name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, not needed as a hatnote does the trick. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – We could also add one other Hetty King, the wife of James Green Martin, daughter of Charles King, and sister of General Rufus King. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J. Marcus Weekley[edit]

I couldn't find any notable coverage of him. Even in the article, it says his books are "shamelessly self published". Is he notable per WP:NN and WP:BIO? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless anyone can provide references about him in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. as non-controversial cleanup (G6) Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Adam (disambiguation)[edit]

Superfluous dab page, made redundant by an existing hatnote. Page is orphaned and an unlikely search term Tassedethe (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tassedethe (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelma Vay de Vaya[edit]

Notability questionable. Notability claims cannot be backed up. Article is orphaned. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 08:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep - book is available via Amazon (ISBN 978-0548111048), in reprint by an important (IMO) publisher of interesting 19th c. texts (Kessinger). Clairvoyants, savants, etc. were important in late 19th and early 20th c. American & European culture. Notability remains questionable, and article does need work, in any event. Searching on "Adelma Vay" turns up more than the whole long name. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And rewrite. I see good things in the future for this article... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and move to Adelma Vay, which seems to be the most common of the Baroness' many name variants. See Google books for multiple sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Christopher VanWilliams[edit]

apparently self-created article with no indication of notability JimWae (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Article is written with a non-bias, neutral point of view. No self-promotion, clear informative facts with references and ONE external link to the title holders professional portfolio with examples of work in all stated genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcvw (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC) — Rcvw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete If you are notable, someone else will write a page about you. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upon search of name, fellow seems to have a decent fan base in the northeastern usa, a lot of lovely models! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.192.224 (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC) — 72.68.192.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete article is self-promotion.. many of the "credits" are to blogs.. Not every free-lance photographer who sells a few photos deserves an entry in an encyclopedia --JimWae (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keepfor this kid being the age he is his portfolio clearly shows plenty of experince, article needs some fine tuning but that's what the community is indeed for. cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.19 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and self promotion. Sources provided in article are either blogs, or merely use his work, rather than provide coverage of him. I've not been able to find any other reliable sources about him either. For those !voting keep, please have a look at WP:NOTE and WP:BIO for the notability guidelines. Silverfish (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable vanity page.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Great artist...rising fame in the east coast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.57.140 (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — 24.189.57.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are no sources in the article, or to be found via the usual online search engines, which suggest this individual or his work has received significant coverage. Maybe he'll warrant an article one day, but that day is yet to come. The Parting Glass (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (WP:NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Urbain Street[edit]

Despite the fact that this is a long, north-south street, passing through a number of notable districts and figuring in the title of the Richler novel, Saint Urban is a mainly residential street that, I fear, fails to pass WP:STREET or general notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN The Canadian Literary Landmarks alone clinches it for me. Sorry I'd missed that. I'll add it as a citation to the article immediately. Thanks, Oakshade. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides being a major street in Montreal with many notable places on it (Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal and Palais des congrès de Montréal for examples), it does seem to be the in-depth subject of secondary sources [40] and according to John Robert Colombo's book Canadian Literary Landmarks the street as very important literary significance [41], thus passing even the core criteria of WP:N.--Oakshade (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion corner[edit]

Non-notable neologism. One unreliable source. Graymornings_(talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a neologism, the term has been around for a long time, see [42]. There are now 3 references on the page. And I'm sure many shining examples of Wikipedia articles today started out with zero references. Do a google search for confusion corner and nearly all of the results are for the corner in Winnipeg. You'll also see people looking for a roommate and referring to the distance of their place to confusion corner[43], so it is used as a geographic reference point in Winnipeg. People make pins[44] and tshirts of the confusion corner sign[45], an advertising firm uses the confusion corner as a symbol in a poster for itself[46]; it is part of the identity of Winnipeg. As for notability there are many longstanding articles about streets, roads, and routes in Winnipeg, and this one is as notable as they are, so if this goes then it would be the start of a new policy and there should be a purge of a large number of long standing articles. Suoerh3 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't doubt that Confusion corner is a local nickname for a intersection in Winnipeg. But we need some secondary sources to establish that the intersection and/or the name is notable, and a personal homepage of a university employee is not considered a reliable source on wikipedia. I am willing to reconsider if reliable sources are found - personally (i.e., wikipedia policies aside) I appreciate the quirkiness of the subject and the name and would like to see such a page retained if possible. Abecedare (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ...still not notable... seicer | talk | contribs 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Crawling Out of People[edit]

Non-notable ~~band~~ label. Article creator removed the PROD, while indicating on the article Talk page that he rejects WP's notability requirements for this -- or any -- ~~band~~ such article, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a band though. Still not notable. Punkmorten (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable label. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shoester (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Entirely original research. Needs complete rewrite and proper sourcing. seicer | talk | contribs 05:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Community Gardens[edit]

WP:OR. While the subject of Montreal's community gardens may well be notable, this article would require too much work to meet WP criteria. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect (non-admin closure). Graymornings_(talk) 10:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soiling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally nominated for deletion on the basis that the term is not significantly different from encopresis or fecal incontinence. I'm nominating again on the same basis - that, and because it seems like even a cleanup wouldn't help this article. It's got unencyclopedic images, major tonal issues, and is based largely on one source - an unrecorded lecture given by a professor that the original contributor evidently heard and based the article upon. Adding to this, it's got a how-to section on management of the condition that definitely shouldn't be there. Some of the info in this article also contradicts the encopresis article. Graymornings_(talk) 06:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say the article topic is no different to encopresis and the previous AFD suggested a merge. Why hasn't the article been merged and redirected then? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing useful to merge - a lot of this is duplicate info and the rest is OR - not to mention the fact that "soiling" isn't exactly a medical term. I didn't want to blank it and redirect without consensus, though. Graymornings_(talk) 12:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly redirect ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dansklubben Marionetterna[edit]

fails WP:ORG. trivial coverage in Google search, and only 1 article in Google news search. seems WP:FANCRUFT. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Punkmorten (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Weak delete Some evidence of notability. Needs to be sourced better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Punkmorten, not notable. The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of white people[edit]

Please read the entire AFD before commenting. ~~An editor has suggested changing to an older version. The article may change radically in the middle of this AFD.~~ 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to August 2008 version and reopened for discussion 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a completely new version as of January 5. 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On the heels of the Stereotypes of Jews AFD, I'm nominating this for deletion. Highly negative and unsourced. Technically speedyable under G10 (white people are an entity). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per, well, just awful.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert: The current article is unreferenced and unverifiable but older revisions are referenced and have some merit. The last referenced version was [47]. I suggest going back over its history and finding a version prior to that which seems relatively good and reverting to that. This might be a struggle as the article seems to have been a real vandal magnet but I think there is an encyclopaedic subject fighting to get out from under all the nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week Delete~~ Per total lack of verifiable information from reliable sources currently given or likely to be presented However I do not condone a speedy deletion under G10 and indeed declined it myself. Unless this AFD is snowed with deletes it should not give rise to a speedy. If there is problematic information remove it - that is not grounds to remove the whole article. Pedro : Chat 22:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this to hell. Not an encyclopedic entry. --John (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD of similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of whites. The original version of this article was meant to be a "fresh start" of that topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several independent versions are in the edit history Consider if any of these are worth keeping:
- current version, as of the time of the AFD
- 10:23, 27 August 2008
- original version, before its history section got gutted davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but revert back to the August version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) see below - rewrite of Jan 5/6 is vastly superior davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is complete conjecture, and is utterly non-encyclopedic. • Freechild'sup? 22:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On December 31, an editor copied the text of Stereotypes of Whites to this article, overwriting a redirect to White people. He then turned Stereotypes of Whites into a redirect to here. Recommend re-listing this to deletion discussion to include both articles, OR roll this article back to its pre-redirect state and list AFDs separately.
Comment: The editor responsible for the current version, Deeceevoice (talk · contribs), is blocked until 22:36, 4 January 2009. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. And while we're at it, delete all "stereotypes of ethnic groups" articles unless impeccably sourced.--Positionyr'self (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- The way this is written, it's like it came from a black power, African American equivalent of Stormfront - i.e. full of lies and idiocy. Also, this article, as with much else in Wikipedia, is extremely Americanocentric. What about white people outside America, and indeed the English-speaking world? What would people in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia make of this? They'd think it was Americanised tripe. On a final note, I'm a white male and my penis is like 8 inches long erect. Is the author of this article calling that small? Sure, I can't dance well (I have a disability that restricts my physical coordination; what do you expect) but this article is complete crap.-Positionyr'self (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Struck comment by banned user -- nobody cares about your penis size, BaT. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this edit summary by the author - [48] - this thing is nothing but a WP:POINT objection to Stereotypes of African Americans, which should also be deleted. --B (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note admin: my comments below regard the relisted version The basic reason: non-encyclopedic. The current version is completely unsourced, and should be deleted (Jungle Fever?). Above, David points to an earlier version of the article. The review of the edit history is commendable; however there are still numerous points about that version which make it unencyclopedic.Some beginning thoughts on the older version: I moved my comment to the new section regarding the relisted version
Delete per Lazulilasher. travb (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Admin comment: I reverted this to an older version. The version originally nominated was a clear G10 violation. This version might be salvagable. But I think it still needs to be discussed. Hats off to Davidwr for identifying a viable version.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC) EDIT: I deleted this article per G4, as this version is from August 27. On August 28, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stereotypes_of_whites was put up for AFD. That is a different article with a different history. I am going to relist this so that the August 27th discussion can be considered. The one initially nomed was a clear G10-Attack Page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so as not to give the world the impression that wikipedians are a bunch of racist scum for having an article of stereotypes of black people but not one one about stereotypes of themselves. Juzhong (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UH, OMG. Am I too tired to read this, or did Juzhong assert that only white people edit Wikipedia? Dlohcierekim 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to. Given how the controversy over these articles arose in the first place that is somewhat ironic. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I asserted that the world might get that impression. You know, due the fact that there's been a longstanding article on stereotypes of African Americans, but when an African American person (I think) tries to create an article on stereotypes of white people, it gets deleted. "Ironically". Juzhong (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per my CSD guide's G10. This is ridiculous that this is being kept. K50 Dude ROCKS! 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined. This is not an attack article aimed at a person, nor does it name any specific person (except for the authors of the sources and Eddy Murphy). Your personal criteria in your user space are not our Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - G10 doesn't have to be directed at a person. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity As it was, without sources, it served no purpose but to disparage white people. And trust me, I do not use CSD lightly, I hate speedy deleters.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Comments below this line refer to the restored August 2008 version and subsequent changes. 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Relisted version: Keep. First, to reply to Dlohcierekim, yes, only white people edit WP - jk. Second, the current version makes an attempt at verifying information with reliable citations, and the article's pattern gives editors something to work from. The RS in this article prove the topic's notability. • Freechild'sup? 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Hi Freechild, would you be able to examine my evaluation of the Reliable Sources which you mention in your comment? They are not, in fact, reliable (various editorials, one group which posits to defend "endangered" white people, etc). The article further contains copyright violations. I do not find that the current article's state comes even remotely close to meeting the community's standard for inclusion. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lazulilasher, thanks for asking me directly - I appreciate that. However, and in response to your section below as well, the topic itself is notable, as a quick scan of Google Books shows at least 63 different mentions of "stereotypes of white people." The article needs work, but the topic has a place simply on the basis of notability. The current format of the article is not flawless; it merely provides something to work from. However, simply because we disagree with the topic does not mean it can't be included; it means that if we're committed to WP as a project we must hold the topic to a high personal standard. In this way we can maintain the validity and ensure the relevance of WP as a whole. That's my thought on this. • Freechild'sup? 05:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stereotypes#White_stereotypes so there is something to merge and permanent-protect. As formatted this is a terrible article but some of the referenced material is usable as a section of the suggested target. In the alternative, userfy to my page so I can merge it later, just be prepared for a huge talk-page edit for GFDL compliance. OK with deleting edit history from 18:56, 14 September 2008 to 01:22, 4 January 2009 inclusive as speedy-deletable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC) remove 2nd !vote, besides, I changed my mind to keep the Jan 5/6 rewrite, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Hats off to Freechild, Good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) *Strong Delete Note, my comments here were moved from above, as they pertain to the relisted (currently in question) version of the article. Basically, the article is completely unencyclopedic with no assertion of notability to reliable, third party sources. Notability may be established within the rubric of "White People" or "stereotypes"; but they are not indepedently established as notable, standalone topics. Comments: [reply]

Internal logical inconsistency: "Whites are stereotyped as racists. In general whites were stereotyped with positive traits" Since when is racism a positive trait? And what are positive traits? Too pov-ish, sorry.

Can we find a reliable, peer-reviewed journal which evaluates the pervasiveness of the white people can't dance stereotype? Is this an overwhelming stereotype, or is it Amero-centric? I am uncomfortable with citing comedian Eddie Murpy as our source (again, we are an encyclopedia).

The source "Resistingdefamation.org", which is used 7 times appears to be a website dedicated to "provid[ing] the basis for lawsuits by degraded, endangered, and disparaged white americans". Hardly NPOV (um...endangered? White People are endangered?)

That version cites this as a reliable source concerning the storage of oxygen in Europeans and Kenyans. I would feel much more comfortable if we could actually cite the medical journal itself. The cited website appears to be devoted to "Taboo" topics. Does not, IMO, pass as a reliable source.

NPOV: Again, I am very concerned about POV in these types of articles. When one writes "stereoptype", what does that mean? And according to whom? Is there a balance?

Copyright violations: The abstract from the Basic and Applied Social Psychology article regarding the stereoptype is cut and paste directly from the source and not noted as a quotation (I believe this fails our Fair Use rationale for text). Compare this with the August Revision's text (I added this comment after my initial post to the AfD Lazulilasher (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Unreliable sources: The first source, cited 5 times in the article, appears to link here. This is the "Essay" section of the retirethechief.org website. Hardly a reliable source. (again, I added this comment after the one above, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would, perhaps, support inclusion of stereotypes of white people in the actual White People article (as long as they are assiduously sourced). This may help defend the text degrade again into an un-encyclopedic mess (again: Jungle Fever? Neurotic?). Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a source for the African American stereotype of white people that actually gives a proper description of who employs it, explains how it originated, and even relates it to White Men Can't Jump (meaning that we can include that connection in Wikipedia without it being original research):
  - David K. Shipler (1997). A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America. Knopf. p. 267. ISBN 9780394589756.
- Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davidwr and expand. You'd think this was allegations of apartheid, given the WP:POINT-making afoot. — CharlotteWebb 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand While this isn't the best article, more of a stub, I can see the value of the topic. Pstanton 06:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Note. I have rewritten the article to prove its notability. • Freechild'sup? 06:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stereotypes are notable.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply No, in and of themselves no topic is notable without reliable sources to demonstrate such. I removed the entire list of stereotypes from this article because there were no reliable sources given the controversial nature of the subject. • Freechild'sup? 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge): This is looking far better then before! I would be happy for this text to be kept and expanded. I am a bit concerned about the overlap with stereotype, which has a large section on white stereotypes (although most of it is actually about national stereotypes which could just as easily apply to non-white people of the nationalities covered). Either this article could be merged there or the coverage of white stereotypes in stereotype could be merged here. The advantage of consolidation is that it is only one article to monitor for vandalism. The advantage of a separate article is that it allows for a more detailed article and prevents the main article getting too big. Given that this article now has a decent base to expand from, I think it makes sense to keep it. A bit of merging to avoid duplication would also make sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is a large section on white Americans in the Stereotypes article. The section on white people is small. Different conversations. • Freechild'sup? 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep And restore some of the negative material if it can be sourced. Apparently this article has been subjected to radical revision from one version to another. Content that can be reliably sourced from both versions needs to be added to expand the article. Deletion is not the solution for extreme POV problems or a lack of balance. As a version with citations existed, it has been rightly restored. The more negative material, which led to this being tagged for G10, should be added only when sources are located and added to the article. Wholesale removal of cited material and its replacement with uncited material should be avoided. Incremental growth of the article, with care to maintain balance and adherence to reliable sourcing, should see it become substantial and well written. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It seems to me that you didn't read my note above. I rewrote the article within the last 12 hours and eliminated the poorly-sourced material, just like would be done to any controversial topic. The version with citations had very poor citations, and for that reason it is not prudent to restore any of that information. I parsed what I could from the restored information, and now the article can move forward. • Freechild'sup? 15:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as with stereotypes of Jews, unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed, the general cultural history and impact should be generally discussed in stereotype, and the sourced stuff that's worth saving should go to Stereotypes#White stereotypes ~~though I'm at loss of where to merge the white-specific stuff~~. Did anyone know there's an entire template of these articles? ((ethnic stereotypes)) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I have run a toolserver query on "Stereotypes of X". The results of the query are about 15 different articles that follow the same "pattern". You can find the list at [49]. I hope this sparks further discussion on what to do with all 15 of them, they are likely to all suffer the same possible faults, and should be monitored if they are allowed to remain. —— nix eagle 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ. I have rewritten this article, and it appears editors commenting here have not read the current version. As a courtesy to the efforts of all editors involved in this discussion, please read the current before commenting. • Freechild'sup? 05:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - And expand, not sure what the argument is for deleting the current version. Raitchison (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand; notable topic; sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles like these need to be monitored for their tone and POV, but stereotypes are encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quality article, which lacks only a rationale for deletion. Wily D 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stereotyping is an important and notable topic, as evidenced by the numerous sources that have been written on it (e.g. Pickering, Racial Stereotypes, in Taylor, Spencer Social Identities (Routledge, 2004) and the numerous articles in its bibliography). JulesH (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this completely new version as of 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC) or any improved version of it. This is very superior to the August 2008 version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like most non-FA articles it could use improvement, but it is a notable topic for which we have reliable sources, and for which there are numerous reliable sources that exist which could easily be added to the article if someone were interested in tackling the job. (63 potential sources right here [50] not to mention works in academic journals) -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the same basis as the other articles. The world is often unpleasant, but we nonetheless write an encyclopedia about it--all of it. DGG (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't really care if its kept or not, but can we please rename it to Stereotypes of Caucasians? It seems a tad more professional, and, for that matter, a little more inclusive (everyone should share in the stereotyping goodness). l'aquatique |✡| talk 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Caucasian, this word is "A term sometimes used in the United States to describe White people". Juzhong (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete & Start from scratch or Keep & Improve - Current article is crappy but the topic is worthy of an article. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hatnote: Not to be confused with Stereotypes of people from the Caucuses :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The necessary sources are provided. Suggest rename per L'Aquatique. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. The name might not be brilliant, but deletion is no longer justified. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Stereotypes of Caucasians. There are light skinned non-Causasians dwelling at higher latitudes around the world, and these might not be applicable.—RJH (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back several months, checked history and article used to be much longer. What, are we going to delete all "Stereotypes of X" articles? Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems mostly to be synthesis. For example the article discusses stereotypes of British, Irish, Slavs, Africaans people, but these stereotypes are not relevant to their "whiteness", but to their etnicity, they are therefore at best tangential to the article. I'm sceptical of the notability and/or encyclopaedicity of this article. Could be a section of the White people article though. Alun (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been shown to be a notable subject with significant coverage in reliable sources. Having an article about these stereotypes is not the same as saying that the stereotypes are true. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fine subject for an article, and could be a scholarly one too. This isn't it, this is a terrible article. Improve, don't delete.--Mongreilf (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- for obvious reasons. deeceevoice (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs clean-up. However the article has several reliable sources demonstrating noteworthy content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent example of why we don't just delete stuff but actually think about and discuss it first. Good work on the improvements. Pedro : Chat 12:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--Article is well sourced with a worldwide perspective. --Jmundo (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability not established. seicer | talk | contribs 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faust (2008 film)[edit]

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the nom. Not only is no notability asserted, but none can be found in reliable sources independent of the subject: [51][52][53]. When there is, by all means please bring the article back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Child of Midnight. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete since notability has not been established at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:NFF, no prejudice towards recreation when filming begins. seicer | talk | contribs 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devil (2010 film)[edit]

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waaaaaaay too soon for this article considering it has not even been written yet and the ONLY thing about it on IMDb is a 2011 date. If M. Night is involved, and continues to be involved, there will no doubt be much to qualify this per WP:NFF. But currently? Doesn't even tickle WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article only states there's an idea. Without a script, or actual shooting being done, this is way too early to have an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. At this point, this movie is only a project. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; recreate if it is reliably sourced that production has begun (I imagine that the resulting film would be notable due to Shyamalan's involvement). —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald H. Horner III[edit]

Vanity auto-bio. Author is claiming subject notability as a former college hockey player, but fails WP:ATHLETE because the subject was neither Pro-level nor an Olympic-level amateur. None of the references provided establish any kind of independent media notability, only that he played Division-I college hockey, and the only two that mention him by name are sports pep-pages from his home team's website. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and is written very badly. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, fails the notability test. Terraxos (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Haarlow[edit]

She is a sideline reporter for the Blazers and appears to fall far short of WP:Entertainer. RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notabilit requirements. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any significant coverage of her achievements as a reporter. Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While tragic, Ray is not-notable seicer | talk | contribs 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Bautista[edit]

Non-notable person. Nothing in this article amounts to a claim of notability: having terminal cancer, though tragic, is not inherently notable; nor is running a MySpace page; and none of the websites he founded or wrote for are notable enough to have their own articles. I am unable to find any references about him in reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish Ray the best of luck, but there is no real notability here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stand by my original decision that this should have been be speedy deleted (G7). Tarret ^talk 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable athlete, seicer | talk | contribs 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Gazdic[edit]

Non-notable junior hockey player. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:ATHLETE. Grsz ¹¹ 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as he is not a professional player, and has won no major awards. Note that the award mentioned in the article is an internal team award, not one handed out by the OHL. Reso lute 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable junior player who fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. As resolute mentioned, the award he won was a team, not league award. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Katy[edit]

Delete. One section of a web site hardly seems like a notable subject. No independent reliable sources with significant coverage cited. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Duran Duran. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Duran Duran) - doesn't have independent notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet our notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Tanguay[edit]

Non-notable junior player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play professionally. Can be readded when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Prod removed was mistaken in his edit message that the player meeds the WP:HOCKEY player notability guidelines as major-junior hockey is not professional. Djsasso (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable am player, fails WP:ATHLETE. Grsz ¹¹ 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that I misread WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE (In my head, I somehow merged "Played five or more seasons, and at least 100 games" from one line with "in a major junior league such as the Ontario Hockey Association" of the following line) but it still meets WP:N with sufficient Reliable Sources for a V, NPOV, NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the same reasons I indicated when I prod'd this. Fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also...notability is not inherited. The sources in the article seem to be based on the fact that he is his brother's brother. WP:ATHLETE is the one that matters here, since he is an athlete and the articles linked apply to his being an athlete. As he does not meet WP:ATHLETE, he is not notable. --Smashville^talk 06:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete QMJHL is not pro, fails WP:ATHLETE. ccwaters (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelpMaticProHTML[edit]

NN software by NN parent company, contains no claim to notability within the field or even the genre, no references, zero non-advertising ghits Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 02:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose keeping the entry for now. This is a placeholder as I organize the information. This is my first initial entry, so I may need to add more information. --Dskirk (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need reliable sources to show that this product is notable. It may simply be too new. -- Banjeboi 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do appreciate the feedback. The product has been available for almost a decade but it is never reviewed because its competition are big software products such as Robohelp and Doc-to-Help and others. I can find no articles of review, but I've learned a lot in this process so I thank you for your comments. I may make a fresh attempt at some future point if I can locate a reputable review. Thank you. --Dskirk (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid notability really is negligible. I found nothing significant. Tim Ross (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. seicer | talk | contribs 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Keeler Principle[edit]

Non-notable philosophy which has been madeup by brotherseinstein.com/. It appears to be a hoax created by Broseinstein (talk · contribs) who appears to be the operator of that website. Also, the "Albert Keeler Principle" highlighted in yellow links directly to User:Broseinstein. Cunard (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, there is no official provision for such. Still, most clueful admins invoke WP:IAR when presented with a CSD tag on a blatant, vandalistic hoax article. Hooray for unnecessary process. Can the next admin that sees this go ahead and do the honors? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article with ((db-vandalism)) which I should have done instead of taking it to AfD. Cunard (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be constued as vandalism in any way. Yes, it's probably non-notable, and yes, there's a conflict of interest, but you'll just have to wait for this AFD to close. Wily D 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and the user page which is a duplicate. JuJube (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Good job on cleanup and refs Drmies and Benjar. non admin closure --Terrillja _talk 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aethelred Eldridge[edit]

Orphaned, questionable notability - article doesn't reference any specific works of art, for instance. JaGa^talk 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote after the impressive sourcing and article improvement by Drmies and others. I honestly looked for sources, but didn't have any luck. Article does indeed meet notability criteria now. Raven1977 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Delete Found nothing on a search of Google Scholar, only two unique hits on Google news,[54] both of which are subscription-only and seem to lead to university newspaper sources, probably from the school at which he's an assistant professor. None of this satisfies notability criteria. Raven1977 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found plenty (well, enough), and have added it to the article. Also, the fancruft has been cut; the article can stand, and the subject is proven notable, in my opinion. Raven, please have another look. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - An article, McNamara, Meghan (2006) “Ohio U. art professor teaching outside the box”, from the 1 June 2006 Ohio University newspaper, The Post, was picked up by University Wire and distributed nationally. In 2001 the Columbus Dispatch, not a university rag, published a story on him: Gilson, Nancy (2001) “Burning Bright” Columbus Dispatch of 29 October 2001, p. 8E. Earlier that year University Wire picked another article from The Post: Royal, Tiffany; Gross, Lauren and Guard, Rachel (2001) “Look a little closer on your way to class” The Post 1 February 2001. Although he does not appear in Art Index performance artists often don't. --Bejnar (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wilde, Elizabeth (1975) “Faculty Show Combines Traditional with New” The Sunday Messenger 5 October 1975, p. C-9 devoted a portion to Aethelred Eldridge, again not a university rag. --Bejnar (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets the WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion in the Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes seems sufficient for notability as an artist. The lack of reference to specific works of art noted in the AfD rationale is presumably because he's a performance artist, which would also explain lack of Google Scholar coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per the references. The Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes has been reviewed by the Library Journal.--Jmundo (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. A stupid IP removed a good version of the list. Schuym1 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guyanese women writers[edit]

This is a list that has 7 authors that are all red links and there is more listed on the talk page that are red links also. Schuym1 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Owen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources to verify her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. David in DC (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stacey is a very popular model, also seems funny that it was mentioned in a forum about her entry here on Wiki and some one has flagged it for deletion the next day.May be you can tell us what part of the entry is not reliable as a quick search brings up plenty of information that cooberates what is entered here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posty2 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no idea whether or not the WP:PORNBIO requirements apply, but she definitely doesn't pass WP:BIO. Terraxos (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream factory (album)[edit]

This page should be identified as an unreleased album. Antpooh (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note that I corrected the formatting for the nomination. Raven1977 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a bit of investigation, I see that the nominator also created Dream Factory (unreleased album). My suspicion is that he/she wishes that to be the proper title, so this article can simply be redirected to that target, rather than deleted. I've asked the nominator to comment here if that solution is satisfactory. Raven1977 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rename to Dream Factory. 1) Articles about unreleased albums are allowed assuming the article contains sufficient referenced information. 2) Articles are given the most common name and also given a modifier if the name itself isn't sufficient to distinguish it from other topics (also capitalization matters). Since the article states in its very first sentence the album was never released. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the title. It would violate naming guidelines for keeping the modifier as short as possible in a case where one isn't even needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename per Mgm. If that is the final decision, I would also ask the closing admin to either redirect Dream Factory (unreleased album) to the appropriate name or possibly delete it as it is a duplicate article with a title that is an unlikely search term. Raven1977 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Latin American wars of independence. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American revolutions[edit]

Article is merged into the better, more specifically named Latin American wars of independence The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge why set up a AfD when you could simply merge the article? That way all of the material and edit history is left entact. travb (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has been included into the Latin American wars of independence page. There is no more need to it.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A little confused here, if you have merged this article already, and it's information is a redundant duplicate then yes, delete. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge, so the article content history is accessible? travb (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information from this article was included into the Latin American Revolutions article. There is no point to keep the content history if it is by no means productive, especially since there is no citations that validate information.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is written by someone whose view of a "revolution" is limited to the 1776 American type, which was would be described as a "war of independence", and that's been done, as described above. When one thinks about how many governmental shakeups and civil wars in Latin America have been described as revolutions (such as the Mexican Revolution of 1910), it's hard to look at this article as being encyclopedic. See List of revolutions and rebellions to see how many uprisings there have been in Central America and South America over the years. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin American wars of independence. Why do you want to delete this? It sounds like a reasonable search term to me. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, "revolution" does not just mean a war of independence, so redirect is not a good idea. If anything, it should redirect to the list of revolutions, but that's not a good idea either. Mandsford (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. For example, the Cuban Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, the Guatemalan Revolution and the Nicaraguan Revolution were Latin American revolutions that were not wars of independence. Indeed, they took place long after independence. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latin American wars of independence. The latin americans revolutioned therefore i think it should redirect--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If content has been merged into another article then the history needs to be preserved somewhere for GFDL purposes. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging the content is okay, but please no redirect -- that's just plain wrong from a dictionary standpoint. What one person described as a group of people that "revolutioned" actually would be that they "revolted" (revolution can also refer to something that has "revolved", such as the Earth around the Sun). All wars of independence are revolutions, but not all revolutions are wars of independence. In European history, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. were not wars of independence, and revolutions have occurred in many Latin American nations -- the 50th anniversary of the end of the Cuban Revolution was celebrated just last week. Mandsford (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Fargiano[edit]

Doesn't meet notability. Sources are limited to self-published book listings on Amazon and other book stores, interview on radio show and own website. Needs third-party sources. Google seems to just show primary sources and PR releases. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jim Wales said in the Wall Street Journal, "I'd be happy to have, in theory, a good, neutral biography on every single person on the planet. I mean why not" travb (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be Jimmy's opinion, but last time I checked the rules are set by the community. If the only source of information is the person himself there's nothing stopping him from embellishing his achievements or downright lying.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability through lack of independent sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Acupressure#Instruments. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acuball[edit]

Orphaned, unreferenced, reads like an advertisement. JaGa^talk 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I cleaned up the article to take care of it sounding like advertising. It still has sourcing, and perhaps notability problems. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acupressure and add a comment about it there; well-attested per gsearch, but not clearly notable in itself. JJL (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acupressure#Instruments (no Merge). I just added that section documenting several different instruments used to apply acupressure, including balls, rollers, mats etc. The current Acuball article is problematic even after the cleanup I gave it. It portrays the acuball as an invention by Dr. Michael A. Cohen, which, is in fact incorrect. The source I added to Acupressure#Instruments was printed in 2003 and describes the "Acu Ball". There are other sources in Gbooks as well. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per everyone else. Schuym1 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Acupressure#Instruments per the above. Terraxos (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. seicer | talk | contribs 05:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear Races[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear races. This was spun out of the main article but basic problems with sources remain. I'm not inclined to just G4 this so prefer to have a further discussion to try and drum up better sourcing. Otherwise, I think this would fail V, RS and N Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a sports Almanac, but rather an encyclopedia. South Bay (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a skim of the article is probably enough to reveal that it has little to do with sport... and much to do with television. —Sladen (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some people are likely going to call for independent references, but since Top Gear is already notable, we don't need those to establish notability. Also, some believe episodes can be used to reference television program articles. Are the relevant Top Gear episodes available on DVD? If not, it's unlikely readers will be able to watch said episodes to verify the information (without resorting to piracy). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually MGM, I think N is a real issue here because the question is whether these are separately notable to justify separate articles. For me, WP:UNDUE also comes into play as there is clearly no doucmentation to allow these to exist as external articles. They were spun out because they got too big so I'd wonder whether they actually should be trimmed and brought back into the article - otherwise the coverage is disproportionate to the actual real-world sourcing of the subject (i.e. none). That's partly why I didn't just G4 this as, if we end up merging then, we will need a protected redirect to preserve the history to comply with the GFDL. Just a thought anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each race is already described with a bare minimum of words and only mentioning a couple while leaving out the majority of races would make the coverage incomplete and skew the perceived importance of the races that are covered (now THAT is undue weight). We have multiple television series that have long episode lists or even articles on single episodes. I don't see how spinning this particular topic off is any different from that. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary of the topic with Top Gear article. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment There's far too much information here to warrant merging into the main article or the challenges article therwise the articles would be too long. As someone above said, this article has nothing whatsoever to do with sport. It's all to do with a significant feature of a popular british TV motoring magazine. Maybe the article could be renamed 'List of Top Gear races' and then organised into tables, like what is done with the episode lists for numerous programmes. After all, the article is effectively a series of lists. As to what was said about the episodes being availible on DVD, I think the BBC only release certain episodes or compilations to DVD. The races may appear on a Top gear challenges DVD if there is one (excluding the Richard Hammonds Top Gear stunt challenge interactive quiz DVD that came out before christmas) but otherwise, man of the episodes are repeated on Dave anyway. Looneyman (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This series of races is one of the signature elements of this highly notable TV series. There is far too much information to support a merge. Raitchison (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and too big to merge back into main article. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted, this article was created in order to keep the main Top Gear article down to a manageable size. Deleting it would merely re-create the previous problem - as the bulk of the content would end up being added back to the main Top Gear article. DrFrench (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the argument has already been presented, a merge would make the main Top Gear article way too large, especially considering many of it's segments are given separate articles. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone arguing to keepthis article have any sources to show that this is an independantly notable subject? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be? I seem to remember a guideline saying it's okay to split articles in such a way to keep it within a manageable size without having to establish notability for the new pages. Can't find it right now, so I might be wrong of course.. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people apparently have no problem with separate discography-pages; couldn't the same reasoning used for creating those be applied here? --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also also; in any newspaper article about Top Gear I'm sure you'd find mention of (at least some of) the races. Would that be the coverage you're looking for to show that the races is an independently notable subject? There should at least be possible to find what WP:N calls "significant coverage" of some of them (though I'm only guessing here, haven't looked so might be wrong...), would that - if found - establish notability for the subject? --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, most recent one q="top+gear"+blackpool+illuminations+2008+race 1,000+ results. —Sladen (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are not signification coverage though, just passing mentions. Found ~~one~~ some though (will be adding more if found):

Hammond races fighter jet in Top Gear stunt
Top Gear under fire again for racing stunt
Top Gear presenter in new high-speed stunt
Not completely sure about this as it's not available online: Jeremy gets into top gear at ss great Britain.

--aktsu ^(t / c) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic race coverage in Daily Telegraph. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a lot about the arctic challenge, but as it has it's own page I'm ignoring all those. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article lacks reliable sources that are independent of the author's own web-site, and the remainder have not been verified. Having been published does not make one individual notable. No foul if the article is later recreated when approperiate citations are found and implemented, and the article is given a very good overhaul. seicer | talk | contribs 05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Moen[edit]

This person does not appear to be biographically notable. In particular, he seems to be a second-string author and wannabe inventor of an "afterlife communication device". Perhaps this is solely here as a soapbox. Not sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's published five books. I was expecting them to be self-published, so I checked them, but they're not self-published at all. In his field, he's somewhere near the top of the game. The fact that his chosen field is controversial, unscientific, or just plain bollocks doesn't change whether he is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be major publishers. I have a friend who published five books with a boutique publisher too. Does that mean she gets an article? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a small house, but Hampton Roads does not appear to vanity publishing. Mind you I have a Wrox book in progress, but I don't consider myself notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the vanity publishing I'm worried about, its the fact that it's niche publishing. A year ago we deleted an article on a science fiction writer who wrote a series of 8 books whose circulation may have numbered somewhere in the thousands. I imagine that this person has a similar figure. I think that in order to be notable, at least one of your books has to be notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Richard's reasoning. --Blowdart | ^talk 08:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is completely sourced to the subject's own website, except for a source for 'no one's proved an afterlife yet', which really doesn't need a source. Further, the bulk of the article goes completely unsourced, with no indication of any reviews by book critics, scientists, or others. Even the assertions about consciousness research', which sounds like psychological and psychiatric fields, aren't supported. Then we've got a linkfarm at the bottom. Ultimately, the article fails to establish notability from outside sources, and so I say delete. If someone could demonstrate notability, stub for total rewrite. ThuranX (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but with the option to re-create if reliable sources are forthcoming) - a year ago I went into this article thoroughly and found a sole source that wasn't linked to him or his publisher. The recommendations I made at the time haven't been followed up, the aticle's just sat there really. If there is only one independent source (which no-one has even bothered to incorporate) then this should go. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Moen is of value because he's one of very few unaffiliated authors who provides in depth documentation of what happens inside the Monroe Institute. As the institute's sales of educational materials over the decades has run into the millions this is in no way a niche subject matter. (By way of comparison, the clearly notable US Government Remote Viewer 001 Joseph McMoneagle has written as many institute-related books as him but only clocks up half the Google hits). Moen's work is also highly rated by those considered to be phasing experts by their peers, see the bottom section of http://www.astralpulse.com/frankkepple.html for example. I expect I can improve the quality of the article, and add refs without stubbing it. K2709 (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per richard's thinking. The fact that I consider Moan's work a steaming pile of horseshit doesn't come into how notable he is. Truth is not the benchmark for inclusion.Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Richard. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Richard makes an interesting argument but I don't see any evidence that there are reliable sources about Moen. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of the reliably published third-party sources about Moen that would allow him to pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The field is irrelevant, true, but even if the field were miniature ponies or pool tables or postage regulations, the references we have do not establish notability. User:K2709's arguments are wholly unconvincing for determing Wikipedia notability versus notability within a field. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks to User:K2709 for pointing out another article with very serious problems. Could other people here also pop over to Joseph McMoneagle and figure out what to do there? It's a mess, with an extreme amount of POV problems, including the absurd "McMoneagle's remote viewing time travel revelations" section. DreamGuy (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per David Eppstein, and due to the apparent lack orf reliable and independent sources. Having written several niche books is insufficient to show notability, without substantial coverage of the author in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For lack of notability to WP standards. I can't find any reliable sources that indicate the subject is notable enough for an entry. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, and a rather reluctant one. Richard makes a rather convincing argument for keeping the article. (I mean, someone who publishes five books should ideally obtain enough coverage/review from others to establish notability.) However, It takes a back seat to the core of the notability guideline, which requires significant coverage via reliable secondary sources. That's where I drew a blank. I'd be happy to change to keep if someone can find some where I have failed. MuZemike (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three. K2709 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply being the author of published works is not part of our notability standards. Those works need to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order for them or their author to be considered notable. Dlabtot (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is considered very notable within his field. Has five books published by reputed publishing houses. NoVomit (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The very first hit in a Google News archive search is a 1585-word article in the Denver Post about the subject. It may not be enough on its own to show notability, but I'm surprised that so many people have commented on this AfD without doing this most basic of searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For his first book, Amazon generates a partial list of 11 citations. Six of these are independent, and unmentioned so far - [55]. They include coverage by Robert Peterson who's a pretty big hitter in field of OBE, having co-authored books with Charles Tart. K2709 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much as it's a minority interest, unless there are reliable sources, I can't see any reason why this author is notable. His books definately fail WP:BOOK. Richard Hock (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Clearly fails WP:NOTE; unreliable, non-independent references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammael 42 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO due to lack of independent reliable sources. Verbal chat 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hybrid (mythology). MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half-creatures[edit]

Appears to be original research. I read references 1-3, and they do not even mention the term "half-creature". (#4 is inaccessible to me.) Tagged with notability concerns since more than 1 year. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe the problem is with the title, not the notability. Try half man/half animal. As the article points out, these creatures are an important part of mythology. In fact, they are represented in cave drawings predating modern history. Name change and keep is the solution in my opinion. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article points that out, but doesn't give a reliable source. A name change won't solve that problem. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL- a reliable source for mythology? How about Homer? ShoesssS ^Talk 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about considering Homer as a primary source? It's not our job here to interpret the Ilias, we should base our articles on secondary sources. Of course there are plenty about Homer - just that this article does not have the least relation to them. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclops ? ShoesssS ^Talk 18:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Hybrid (mythology). Juzhong (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "merge"? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little is not already there to Hybrid (mythology). This page does have the mention of modern examples in its favour, but with the way they're currently presented we should be careful to avoid turning Hybrid (mythology) into an open-ended list of film and anime characters. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. We definitely shouldn't add everything in the article to Hybrid (mythology), especially not as a list, and especially not every single video game and TV character. But it might be appropriate to split the Hybrid article into sections and include a few notable examples of hybrid creatures in literature, film, etc. Graymornings_(talk) 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to hybrid (mythology): we don't need two articles on the exact same subject. (We could merge that article to this one, but that one appears better sourced.) The lists are worth keeping, but should be in the article we already have. Terraxos (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Stone[edit]

Expedited Cleanup desired by nom

Does not seem to be a notable magazine to me. No awards, no outside notice, not a very high circulation. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's just a bad article. It had some notable authors, see [56] for instance. I found this in an article in Antiquity (journal) "But Cope is by no means alone in taking a more holistic view and taking issue with the view that only professional archaeologists have the right to put forward new ideas about the past. The magazine The 3rd Stone follows much the same path, and has a rapidly increasing subscription base and considerable public following. It carries articles by a wide range of authors and gives each equal weight." Google Books and Google Scholar turn up a number of mentions and citations to it, eg "3rd+Stone"+magazine dougweller (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Artw (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expedited Cleanup. Guy's long overdue proposal is what's called for here, based on Dougweller's search. If there's no change in 3 months, another AfD may be needed. I suggest a time limit in the spirit of the EXPEDITED part of the EC vote. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to hold onto it for three months to wait for it to maybe become good. It can be deleted and then someone can come up with a good article and sources and either get it undeleted or start over. Don't keep bad articles aroudn just for the sake of it. Clearly does not have notability right now, but if what dougweller says maybe someday soon it will and it can be recreated. We aren't a crystal ball or a charity case or whatever. DreamGuy (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note' AFD guidelines clearly state it's not intended to force cleanup. Instead, post the appropriate tags and if you really want something cleaned, deliver a note to a relevant wikiproject or possibly interested editors. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Any editor can improve articles without nominating them for deletion. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no third-party sources to establish notability. Sole source is a broken link to a series of brief reviews in fellow-traveller publication Fortean Times. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: make that "a broken link to a series of brief reviews in fellow-traveller publication Fortean Times" that doesn't even verify the information cited to it. (I just Waybacked it to check.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've added another source. Darvill is a very well respected archaeologist. Do we need more? dougweller (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call a 9 year old mention in a review of some other book "significant coverage" Yes, you need much more. (The review is approx 1600 word, excluding references -- the 3rd Stone mention is 35 words -- or 2% of the total -- trivial coverage, as defined in WP:NOTE.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*The fact that the 'mention' is 9 years old is itself trivial. As the review isn't about the magazine, I wouldn't expect a longer comment on it but as someone who knows a bit about British archaeology and Darvill I wouldn't call his mention of it trivial. The magazine has featured some respected authors. It's cited in some reliable sources. It had some reputable writers whose articles would be considered reliable sources. I'm not clear what more it needs. dougweller (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added that Stan Beckensall was also a contributor. If the magazine isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, why did these people contribute to it? And we aren't just talking about fringe authors like Michell. dougweller (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If the magazine isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, why did these people contribute to it?" (i) Sometimes notable people contribute to non-notable ventures. Notability isn't transitive. (ii) The majority of the listed authors aren't notable. As to the new sources, I would note that three are to 3rd Rock itself, or to its predecessor (not independent), and that the fourth is completely trivial (to a mere citation). This continues to leave Darvill's 35 words as the sole thin thread of claim to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. It has contributions from respected and notable academics, articles cited in books and articles by other reputable sources (and we would, I hope, accept those articles as RS), it was kept in University libraries and listed as a resource by various good online archaeogical websites, eg the Council for British Archaeology, but still not notable. I don't think I can find anything else but if it gets deleted, well, that seems a bit quirky. By the way, it has been more or less resurrected as "Time and Mind" [57] dougweller (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether it is WP:FRINGE or not (though I am skeptical on that point), but whether it is WP:NOTE or not. That requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This is not a "quirky" standard -- the opposite of 'notable' is 'obscure' -- and numerous specialist websites, libraries, etc can quite conceivably, and quite commonly, list or hold a great deal of obscure material. 35 words still doesn't cut it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Krupp is a debunker of fringe stuff, it's not fringe, 'bridge' maybe. There are various grades of 'notable' and the term is from my experience here relevant to context. In the world of British archaeology and folklore, this was, I'd argue, notable. From the point of view of the general population, obscure may be a fair desciption. I do think the fact that a number of its articles are used as citations in reliable sources, and that prominent organisations or websites (archaeological, yes, but prominent in that field) listed it is worth something. dougweller (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "The question is not whether it is WP:FRINGE or not" did you fail to comprehend? The "world of British archaeology and folklore" is not the benchmark for notability -- "strong evidence of interest by the world at large" is (WP:NOTE, footnote 5). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, we agree about far more than we disagree. I know what the benchmark is for notability. I'm not 100% convinced you are interpreting footnotes 2 and 5 correctly, since I've seen successful arguments that notability can be within a more limited sphere than literally the 'world at large', I am simply speaking from my experience with AfDs. And I agree the fringe issue shouldn't matter, my response was just to your skepticism about it. My perception is shaped by my having read several issues of the magazine and probably knowing more about the context than you do. That does NOT mean I am saying I know better, it just means that that shapes my perception and probably makes it seem more notable to me than it does to you. It's part of my bias, as it were. We all have biases. I've already said I can't find any more evidence, it will be up to whoever closes this (and I hope it is an Administrator and that it goes the full 5 days, I am wary about some of the closes in the last few months). dougweller (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 2: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." "independent of the topic itself" leaves out the two citations to 3rd Stone, and the citation to At the Edge which was merging with it. "Vendor" leaves out the two references to www.megalithic.co.uk, which sells it. "Non-trivial" leaves out the mere citation in Archaeoastronomy & Ethnoastronomy News. As I believe I may have mentioned once or twice before, this leaves Darvill's 35 words (which itself falls flat on the "focus on it" part). On footnote 5, I was reading between the lines (but then, you presented no solid evidence requiring an explicit guideline to match it up against). I don't however think it is too idiosyncratic an interpretation to consider that the more specialised and obscure the 'world' under consideration, the more prominent or notable the topic must be within it for it to be considered to meet wikipedia's notability requirements. By way of example, I'm sure that there are a large number of whole medical journal articles written on single specific surgical techniques -- that would not, in and of itself, mean that each and every one of these techniques was a notable topic for an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dougweller. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand a little if there are further sources. DGG (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Wherley[edit]

Previously a domestic partner of a notable person, which in itself doesn't infer notability to someone and a short mention in the other person's article is enough (and it is there). Other than that, there's one source, from a local paper's website about a small business he co-owns, which again does not make him particularly notable. I can't find any better sources by googling. Bobet 10:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Typically, I would agree with you concerning one event. However, in this case, though he is linked and most of the coverage is based on his relationship with Esera Tuaolo, I was able to find significant coverage that dealt with Mr. Wherley as an individual. Given this fact, I have to go with keep. In the mean time, I have started referencing and citing the piece. If anyone wants to give a hand and help out, feel free. Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where are those sources you found? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you look at the piece, you will note that it is now sourced. Didn’t happen by magic :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You seem to have missed the point. A gay nfl player is something to write about, his former partner, not so much, and as you say, the coverage is never about mr. Wherley alone. It's the same reason you wouldn't write an article about a wife or a child of any other famous person, there's simply nothing to say about them outside that context, which can be better handled in the partner's (or parent's or whatever) article. - Bobet 15:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have no problem with a merge and redirect. However, that begs the question, why did you bring it here? This area is for discussions on deletions, not for discussions on merge/redirect. That is better handled on the articles discussion page and when consensus is reached, and consensus can be just one editor if no others participate in a reasonable time frame,and just move it over at that point. OK. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's here because to me, deletion is a better outcome than a merge or a redirect. Merging won't be useful since the data in this article is out of date, questionable (see the talk page) and everything useful is or has been in the other article (if it was removed from there as an editorial decision, re-adding the same content because you like to merge something is just annoying). Creating redirects from every ex to their partner is pointless, mostly because no one will ever look up this person out of that context, and it's questionable due to wp:blp1e. - Bobet 09:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge. Outdated information isn't neccesarily unencyclopedic. The article could still state the guy was his partner from xxxx to xxxx without doing any concessions on accuracy. Covering him in the biography of the NFL player makes the article complete. Owning a few succesful businesses may make him notable, but without enough information to write a biographical article merging is the better solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the domestic nor the business arrangement is sufficiently notable to be worth an article. DGG (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Esera Tuaolo) - notability is not inherited from his partner. Terraxos (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems an unremarkable (even if documented) example of a kind of businessman of whom there are hundreds of thousands. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge all the subarticles into one. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillout Sessions[edit]

This is a collection of track listings from compilation albums. This kind of content does not seem suited for an encyclopedia. Specifically, it doesn't meet the notability criteria set out at WP:NALBUMS - secondary sources seem to be missing. Flagged for notability concerns since May 2008. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles with track listings:

The Chillout Session (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Chillout Session 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Chillout Sessions 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chillout Sessions XI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chilled 1991–2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--B. Wolterding (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Into Template. Could be turned into a template like this and then put at the bottom of the Ministry of Sound article. TopGearFreak 14:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this solve the problem? The articles listed above do not meet the notability criteria, so they should be removed. A template listing them does not make sense in that case. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge. This article states "the Ministry of Sound's Chillout sessions, one of the most successful dance-music albums of all time". Other Google news results include this review, and this. This is a notable and very popular series of compilations. Articles with only tracklistings can be merged to a main article.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is wikipedia the place for tracklistings? Personally, I don't think so. Discogs does this very well already, why replicate it when most people into this kind of music go directly to Discogs? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge. I agree with the above user; track listings are useful here, and use precious few bits of storage. I for one have never even been to Discogs, but if i like a single from an artist, and want to know more about the history of the musicians, compilations, etc, I prefer the cross-referencing possibilities available from Wikipedia and would like to be able to see the tracks on the albums put out by particular singers. While collections seem less notable, in fact for a lot of listeners, myself included, this is how we approach a lot of electronica and it provides a useful branching point (Niall) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.110.186 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with merge - The afd issue is about notability, not about the desirability of track listings. If it's a series of CDs it's notable because it's a very popular series, not so much because any one CD is notable. If they're merged into one it's not only a cleaner interface but it's more consistent. LH (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge all into Chillout Sessions) Wikipedia is the place for encyclopaedic articles and this means they will include track listings at the very least. A good article would be worse without them. Discogs may well be good at track listings, but that does not stop us from having them as well. This review and this article in addition to those found by Michig suggests that Chillout Sessions as a whole are notable, so would be happy to have one article for all the albums in the range. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla science fiction[edit]

I was torn about that nomination, and I would like to see arguments against the deletion (I am well aware of issues with Western-centric bias). Yet the article has several issues: the subject is pretty unknown, and borders on a possible hoax/OR. as the article is mostly unreferenced and based on a single English language source, already offline (but accessible via the Wayback Machine). Is this single source reliable? Hard to say. The subject as it is named is unknown in the print world ([58], [59]) and has very few general google hits: ~100 for the current article title and even less for the alternative ([60]). As it stands, the article may be a summary of a topic covered by a single article of unknown reliability (I haven't checked how closely the article, which mostly lacks inline cites, follows the claimed source). What shall we do? Perhaps some non-English references can be brought to back up the article? PS. Somebody should create an article on science fiction in India (or science fiction in Bangladesh), at least we could consider some merger... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: You can search for Bengali Science Fiction. Literature is dependent on the language used. Hence, creating separate page for India and Bangladesh will not help: there are many other languages used in India and literature of one has very little connection with that of another. Google books provide three limited view books when searched for 'Bengali Science Fiction' and web pages are in few thousands. You could have marked the page with unref tag. I don't think its AFD candidature is justified. An article on Bengali Science Fiction is as useful or useless for English wikipedia as similar pages on Norwegian, Croatian or Russian Science Fiction. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends. The usefulness of an article on Bengali science fiction, Norwegian science fiction, Croatian science fiction, or Russian science fiction depends on the number of authors writing SF in those languages, the quality of their works, the extent of their influence, and so forth. Some languages may have more impressive SF literatures than other languages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - perhaps with name change current sourcing is minimal, but as a concept the topic of the article appears to have substance. And this source [61] would appear to satisfy WP:N if someone has the time to work the content into the article. And according to this [62] "most of the science fiction writing being done [in Indian languages] is in Marathi and Bengali" I am not familiar enough with naming conventions to know if "Bangla" is the preferred/most common adjectival form - perhaps the article should be re-named.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this part that the page should be moved to Bengali Science Fiction.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Science fiction should not be capitalized.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Bengali science fiction. There do seem to be a few sources indicating the existence of science fiction literature in Bengali dating back to the 19th century, and Bengali is one of the most spoken languages in the world, so the topic appears to be valid. The main source used looks acceptable as something to use in the article, although it would be helpful if additional sources (in any language) could be located too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move as above). As well as what has already been said, this has an entry in a paper encyclopedia [63], which is usually accepted as evidence that we should have one in Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per metropolitan, better safe than sorry. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. Just needs sourcing. Empire3131 (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wickham[edit]

Not notable. Only a handful of relevant ghits, most passing mentions in Trinindad newspapers. Only sources are a link to one such article and a scanned image of a print article. Article reads like a news release or résumé. ASuthor has had no other contributions to Wikipedia other than this article. (Contested speedy, then prod.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original author or an anon IP keeps removing AfD notice. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have blocked original author for a short time for removing the tag. ... discospinster _talk 20:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references appear to be sufficient to establish notability. Even if the reference presented as a scanned clipping is uncritical, it is still a legitimate newspaper article. And a newspaper article is a newspaper article, even if it is published in Trinidad. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She's from Trinidad, so the sources would be expected to be there. I just don't think these two are enough, and there's little else to find of any substance. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see that the sources are substantial, and I do not see from the career as described that there is any likelihood of notability if further sources were found. DGG (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly promotional. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability and sources. --Stormbay (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems quite promotional but the references are valid and notability is suitable not only in her country but also her region. Can't she be asked to repost without it reading like her promo material? misnix 19:19, 5 January 2009

Comment: We have. Her block has recently been removed. I'm still skeptical, but I've changed my mind before. We shall see. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO but may come close. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to me to be a case of local notability (or systemic bias); she might not be notable to us, but she seems to be pretty notable in Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean region, judging from the various references provided. When taken together with the TV show she produces, the E-Zone, I'd say there's enough here to pass WP:BIO. Terraxos (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wickham is a notable media personality in Trinidad & Tobago, as with most Trinbagonian personalities sourcing clippings are difficult. Will review article for content and edit to make less advertorial and a few more sources to be found by January 16th 2009. (Ian M. S. Royer) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sonic Syndicate. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fall From Heaven[edit]

Non notable demo, fails WP:MUSIC, no significant coverage or sources. While the band this would eventually spawn is notable, these are not. I seriously doubt any article can be created beyond a permanent stub. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Rehevkor ✉ 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable demos, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all — all three demonstrate no indication of notability as well as being nothing but a directory listing of members and songs. MuZemike (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 04:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two relistings, there's unlikely to be any change in the lack of consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DargonZine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No reliable third-party sources can be found for the claims made herein. The sole claim for notability (the publication's longevity) is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Comment: If this ezine predates mainstream use of the net it might qualify as the earliest ezine that is still running). If it can be verified, such a record would be a proper claim for notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author of the article looks to be on the staff, judging by the comments on the talk page. Wouldn't that be a WP:COI? May not it also be going against WP:NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpbrood (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would be COI if a staffer is editing the article, but that is insufficient reason for deletion (just caution). I haven't seen any obvious POV violations in the article, but those can be edited out, a COI doesn't automatically lead to POV. Mgm|^(talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sorry to say I found several, without really looking, as shown here [64]. Typically, I would go ahead and reference the piece, but as you will note above, I am currently working on several articles at the present time. I believe I should allow someone else the thrill of saving an article from the throes of AFD :-). Happy New Year’s. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That Google scholar link seems, if anything, to prove it's not notable in any way. Teh only mentions are extremely trivial. Notability requires multiple nontrivial coverage in respected third party sources of note themselves. As far as I can tell, this has nothing at all that comes close. Every mention I see in the article and elsewhere is about as trivial as you can get. Merely being present on a huge long list of ezines doesn't mean anything, or else we'd have to have articles for all of those ezines. Being reference by another nonnotable source doesn't make one or both of them notable. (And, personally, per COI rules I'd generally say any article substantially created by someone with a COI should be deleted outright, and if they want to make a case for its inclusion that should raise it on an appropriate talk page/village pump/whatever.) DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, what constitutes multiple coverage, 3 – 5 – 10 – 100? The article is cited in excess of 10 sources. Second, COI is not a reason for deletion. As long as the article is written in a NPOV and is not self-promoting there is nothing wrong. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you taking into account the quality of the citations? Going through the list of Google Scholar results as linked above, one citation merely paraphrases the milieu description, two simply list the name of the publication in an index or list, while two other links (the ones with the French titles) point to the same article. However the case, a few fleeting memtions in scholarly papers written years ago are weak justification for notability. Sharpbrood (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one article is cited a 107 times. Is that outstanding, no, but it ani’t that bad either :-). Regarding age, I have always interpreted the guidelines as such that once notability is established, it has no timeframe. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the point. The article itself may have been cited 107 times, but has DargonZine been mentioned in all 107 of those citations? It seems to be about electronic publishing in general, not about DargonZine specifically. - Sharpbrood (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When the article is cited, the whole article is cited. If DargonZine is mentioned in that particular article, than yes it is mentioned 107 times. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metropolitan Association of Chinese Schools[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability since June 2007. I could not find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources or anything that would satisfy WP:ORG. This is a procedural nomination and I have no strong opinion on the fate of the article. Skomorokh 16:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - associations of schools are generally notable as are school districts. Pages such as this also provide a convenient repository for information on those schools that are not individually notable. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. According to the website links which work (most of the links in the article seem to be dead) these aren't actually 'schools', but are part-time after-school activities, and it seems that most only conduct classes for one afternoon per week. Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not satisfy WP:ORG. My experience with looking for sources yielded nothing that pointed to notability. --Stormbay (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as Mr. Jim Wales said during the bitter 2004-2005 school debate:

If someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it. And that's true *even if* we should react differently if someone comes in and starts mass-adding articles on every high school in the world.

Let me make this more concrete. Let's say I start writing an article about my high school, Randolph School, of Huntsville, Alabama. I could write a decent 2 page article about it, citing information that can easily be verified by anyone who visits their website.

Then I think people should relax and accomodate me. It isn't hurting anything. It'd be a good article, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do."[65] travb (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about a high school. Skomorokh 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales was taking about how editors should "should relax and accomodate" others. This same argument can be made for all schools, even non-highschools. Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is a failed policy. travb (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is citing that proposal, and the article is not about a school. Skomorokh 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability shouldn't be questioned here. The nominator is questioning the article's verifiability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To question one is, ultimately, to question the other; see WP:GNG. Skomorokh 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see how V can be questioned--the web site source supplies the descriptive data, at least the part about the member schools the only part in English--though I can not read Chinese, I assume the events part is similarly supported by the site, and neither would be the least controversial. --although not third party, its enough information to support notability in this case. DGG (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wholly non notable. seicer | talk | contribs 05:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Symonds[edit]

Does not meet the notability criteria, from what I can find. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. Almost every phrase in the article is copied from the obituary linked in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I did some hack and slash rewriting and reordering. Hopefully it's no longer speedy worthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Her only known work that I could find was translation of few German books. I wouldn't mind supporting a good argument suggesting redirect to John Symonds. ^LeaveSleaves 19:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 in 12 Club[edit]

Can't find any evidence this collective meets WP:N or WP:ORG. Sources are either primary or insubstantial coverage (event listings); I couldn't find any significant independent coverage in online searches. Jfire (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously needs more work but, as one of the longer-standing examples of a UK social center, undoubtedly notable. I'd hope, with time, the article could be expanded and improved to something akin to the Cowley Club. I'd concede that mainstream sources are inherently going to be difficult to find, given the nature of the club, but their current absence from a stub-type article doesn't indicate a lack of notability. MisterVodka (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep--Mujinga, I am pleased you were able to dig up those references, which establish notability and allow for the writing of a more objective article on a notable topic (though my earlier comments on the first three sources, I believe, still stand). Delete. The Guardian reference proves that the place exists; the other two references are hardly in-depth or third-party. Looks like a great club to me, but this is not a WP topic--and BTW, it is written in a very, very promotional tone. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The 1 in 12 is certainly notable - one reason for the failure of online searches to turn up much is that it depends on how you spell the name. Another reason is that the club has actually been going quite a long time so there should be paper rather than online references. Cheers for relisting Aitias, I'm actually working on the article now. I agree that the article in its previous state was worthy of deletion but I am now adding references and removing cruft. I think this article was in need of help, not deletion. If anyone wants to be more thorough with the cruft removal, go right ahead and I will be adding some more references later in the week when I dig them out. Let's discuss this on the article talk page if anyone is interested. Mujinga (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mujinga's work clearly shows there are more references available (and better ones) than the nominator originally found in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's enough here to establish notability. No reason to plead for an exception here. Wily D 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the tone and content are things which can be fixed. To delete this item would leave a gaping in the UK_Social_Centre_Network subject area. As noted above the citations are problematic due to the club's long history and turbulent inception pre-dating the automatic inclusion of news items on the internet. However I think I can track down some documentation to scan and add links in the next few weeks. Also - for the elimination of doubt - the club is still very active and has (for example) a remarkable anarchist library. Furthermore, from the point of view of encyclopaedic utility, it seems perverse at the very moment we head back into mass unemployment to delete the history of a still-surving response to the last bout .--Bradford2009 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it would be cool if you could add more refs Bradford2009, i just added two more, and in my view the article certainly shouldn't be deleted now, but i think more work is still needed to make this a good article. i agree with Drmies that the original refs were not so strong Mujinga (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the references that Mujinga found. Schuym1 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Moore[edit]

Notability is based on one regional beauty pageant, with only minor sources referenced. Article is vandalized by its originator, and currently has an incorrect title because of numerous page moves. Full history up to now: [66]. JNW (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should delete the entire article and all links to it. I made it up. I made up the person, and all the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep.wishing (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You did not 'make up' Shelley Matheson [67]; you originated the article, and have vandalized it today. And your user name has now changed, too: [68], [69]. JNW (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further note Author claims that title and account changes are due to threatening e-mails [70]. JNW (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no information listed about this person in the link "Miss World Canada", and only a picture on the "Miss BC Link". That is to say, that the information is not reliable as there is no evidence other than the author's opinion. The one link [71] that has actual information does not include any of the info listed in the wikipedia article.

I believe this article should be deleted because it appears to be a lot of assumptions with no factual evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.69.100 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. Does not meet our nobility guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content has no credible sources, and has been continually vandalized through out the past two weeks. There is no evidence of any of the material stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.69.100 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There seems to be sufficient consensus for deletion due to a lack of verifiability because of lacking reliable sources. — Aitias // discussion 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E. Upton and Sons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability concerns (tagged since September 2007). The first AfD, a year ago, was closed with the comment: "The result was keep. Hopefully sources will follow." They did not follow. Therefore I think we should re-evaluate whether the company is notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There don't seem to be any sources at all online, but that doesn't mean there aren't any print sources somewhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - There are some pay per view sources on Google News for "Garner PLC", apparently the new namve for E Upton and Sons. LinguistAtLarge 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pay sources are perfectly sufficient for use at Wikipedia. These seem sufficient to show notability. DGG (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So add them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, please don't be offended by this question, but did you read these sources before judging the topics notability by them? I didn't since I don't have access, but only from the summaries they might just as well refer to this Garner PLC (which is completely unrelated). --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that Garner seems to be the same one - see ref 1 which I just added. MikeHobday (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some may be; some are from PRwire & similar sources, which Google News unwisely includes; some are the occurance of the phrase in other contexts. At least a few are on point, such as [72]--though I agree that this particular one does not do much for notability. DGG (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional reason for keep is simple common sense: the number of stores is sufficient for notability, and it being extinct makes no difference at all. DGG (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of stores doesn't matter. WP:BIGNUMBER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER itself is a pitfall. It's not the number of stores that matter but the status of the store. Is it a national or international chain? If it is, it's notable regardless of the numbers involved even though the numbers will have contributed to the eventual cause of notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Garner PLC. I remember reading about E. Upton and Sons in the local press at the relevant time. It was important in the North of England, and as I remember, it did cause a bit of a stir in 2001/2002, so I was tempted to say "keep", but I couldn't find any reliable sources to support that.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (various comments by me redacted here) -- this is fairly complicated. Looks like E. Upton & Sons turned into Upton & Southern, who were then acquired by Hilco UK (a company that deserves its own Wikipedia article more than Upton, incidentally), and part of the assets were sold to a Constellation Corporation who then changed their name to Garner PLC, which is a non-notable group of headhunters. -- I'm now inclined to the view that it's simpler to delete the article than to try to tell Upton & Sons' story.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as regional chain. MikeHobday (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck is that a reasoning? "Regional" has nothing to do with it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed, neutrally, I hope, at WikiProject North East England. MikeHobday (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete due to lack of non-primary sources. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there don't seem to be enough sources to write an article here. I would be open to recreation if more sources can be found, but as it is it just doesn't look like this company was ever really notable. Terraxos (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Courtnall Summerfield[edit]

This article has been tagged for notability since June 2007. While it cites no reliable sources, it makes an assertion of notability as the subject is the author of two books and established a college course. This is a procedural nomination and I have no strong opinion on the outcome. Skomorokh 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If there are any references to reviews of the books; given the authorship of the forward to one of them, he might be a major authority on the subject. But the name he used on the books is Roy Courtnall, and this may have complicated the search for references. DGG (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources and no indications of any major authority on the subject. --Stormbay (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find little to no evidence the subject meets the requirements of either WP:N or WP:CREATIVE. The sole independent source I could find was a review of The Art of Violin Making in Music & Letters, and a single review of a coauthored book is far from what we require for notability. Jfire (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.